Climate Science/Resources Thread
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-08-2012, 11:49 AM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
I'm more skeptical of the cures pushed than the data ( I think ACC is pretty well documented). Since the science is pretty clear, it's just a matter of how to attenuate the damage we do. The link below is to a respected scientist who was skeptical of ACC. He was head of a climate project at Berkley and has determined ACC is in fact the case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bl...ard-muller

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2012, 02:52 PM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2012 03:01 PM by Jeff.)
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(03-08-2012 11:49 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  The link below is to a respected scientist who was skeptical of ACC. He was head of a climate project at Berkley and has determined ACC is in fact the case.

I would be very careful about buying into this study (known as BEST). First off, it hasn't been published in a scientific journal - the release so far is preliminary. Second, it's coming out of Berkeley, a fine school in many regards but it's the last place I'd look for objectivity on a liberal sweetheart issue like climate change. (Imagine being a professor at Berkeley and announcing "Climate change is NOT man made!") Third, a scientist I do trust, Dr Judith Curry, head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, declined to be a co-author on the latest BEST study, and says on her blog she does not "see any justification in [BEST's] argument for" the group's statement that its warming data fits with manmade carbon dioxide.

Also, while this study has been widely reported as the conversion of a climate skeptic, Muller says, in the article you reference:

"Asked if it's really accurate to say he was ever a sceptic, Muller replies: "I have considered myself only to be a properly sceptical scientist. Some people have called me a denier - no, that's completely wrong. If anything, I was agnostic."

Which shows again why you have to be extremely careful about buying into the spin given to an article by the MSM.

(03-08-2012 11:49 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  I think ACC is pretty well documented

Documented or demonstrated?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2012, 03:10 PM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(03-08-2012 11:49 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  I'm more skeptical of the cures pushed than the data ( I think ACC is pretty well documented). Since the science is pretty clear, it's just a matter of how to attenuate the damage we do. The link below is to a respected scientist who was skeptical of ACC. He was head of a climate project at Berkley and has determined ACC is in fact the case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bl...ard-muller

Very down to Earth guy, judging by the interview. Hope he releases his paper soon. Must be quite difficult doing research in a charged environment (no pun intended) like the climate change debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2012, 05:15 PM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(02-08-2012 12:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  The right doesn't want it to be true, the left wants it to be true.

I agree with this statement Chas, and I think it's one of the most interesting and revealing statements that can be made about the CC wars. I understand why the "right" doesn't want it to be true - big business doesn't want the cost or hassle of dealing with environmental fixes. That's why the environmental movement of the 70s was a good thing, and led to the enactment of important legislation.

But I do have trouble understanding the "left" even though I've had the same suspicion that the "left" wants climate change to be true. Why is that? Why would someone want the earth to be entering a catastrophic period of warming?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2012, 05:26 PM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(03-08-2012 05:15 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(02-08-2012 12:16 PM)Chas Wrote:  The right doesn't want it to be true, the left wants it to be true.

I agree with this statement Chas, and I think it's one of the most interesting and revealing statements that can be made about the CC wars. I understand why the "right" doesn't want it to be true - big business doesn't want the cost or hassle of dealing with environmental fixes. That's why the environmental movement of the 70s was a good thing, and led to the enactment of important legislation.

But I do have trouble understanding the "left" even though I've had the same suspicion that the "left" wants climate change to be true. Why is that? Why would someone want the earth to be entering a catastrophic period of warming?

I can only speculate that it is based on an anti-business, anti-technology ideology, the whole natural, crunchy granola, back to nature thing.
The left seems full of woo.

Their idea is to take control before the danger is irreversible. It may not even matter whether there even is a tipping point.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-08-2012, 07:25 AM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(03-08-2012 02:52 PM)Jeff Wrote:  
(03-08-2012 11:49 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  The link below is to a respected scientist who was skeptical of ACC. He was head of a climate project at Berkley and has determined ACC is in fact the case.

I would be very careful about buying into this study (known as BEST). First off, it hasn't been published in a scientific journal - the release so far is preliminary. Second, it's coming out of Berkeley, a fine school in many regards but it's the last place I'd look for objectivity on a liberal sweetheart issue like climate change. (Imagine being a professor at Berkeley and announcing "Climate change is NOT man made!") Third, a scientist I do trust, Dr Judith Curry, head of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, declined to be a co-author on the latest BEST study, and says on her blog she does not "see any justification in [BEST's] argument for" the group's statement that its warming data fits with manmade carbon dioxide.

Also, while this study has been widely reported as the conversion of a climate skeptic, Muller says, in the article you reference:

"Asked if it's really accurate to say he was ever a sceptic, Muller replies: "I have considered myself only to be a properly sceptical scientist. Some people have called me a denier - no, that's completely wrong. If anything, I was agnostic."

Which shows again why you have to be extremely careful about buying into the spin given to an article by the MSM.

(03-08-2012 11:49 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  I think ACC is pretty well documented

Documented or demonstrated?

I think when you look at the science, cut Fox News and the Al Gore crowd out, it is very likely that ACC is well documented. Do I have the education and training to go through the data and determine this, no. Call me crazy, I listen to scientist on scientific matters.

Demonstrated is a harder nut to crack. There seem to be definite instances where things have changed for the worse and rapidly, but I have not looked into it enough to state this with relative certainty.

My whole sticking point on this is what we do to fix it. I am not willing to cripple economies to make a pack of anti-capitalist happy. I'm also not willing to allow industry unfettered impact on the planet.Drinking Beverage

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like KidCharlemagne1962's post
04-08-2012, 07:57 AM (This post was last modified: 04-08-2012 08:12 AM by Jeff.)
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(04-08-2012 07:25 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Call me crazy, I listen to scientist on scientific matters.

If I said I listened to theologians on theologic issues, you WOULD call me crazy.

You've been told that scientists are of one consensus on this issue. That's not so.

It was asked earlier, how does one know who to trust? Once I realized that there was money and politics biasing this whole issue, I started asking what institutions I put the most trust in. MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) came to mind as the foremost technical university in the US. At MIT the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology is Richard Lindzen. He wrote a good primer on the origin and nature of the alleged consensus. You can read it at http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv...15n2g.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 08:11 AM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(04-08-2012 07:57 AM)Jeff Wrote:  
(04-08-2012 07:25 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Call me crazy, I listen to scientist on scientific matters.

If I said I listened to theologians on theologic issues, you WOULD

Demonstrated is a harder nut to crack. There seem to be definite instances where things have changed for the worse and rapidly, but I have not looked into it enough to state this with relative certainty.

My whole sticking point on this is what we do to fix it. I am not willing to cripple economies to make a pack of anti-capitalist happy. I'm also not willing to allow industry unfettered impact on the planet.Drinking Beverage


[/quote]

Would I listen to a theologian on their subject of expertise, yes, would it make me believe that their religion is correct, no. Would I allow room for error in what they said, most definitely. Nobody is infallible on any subject (scientist, theologian or floor sweeper).

Science is a data driven endeavor. The vast majority of climate scientists concur on ACC. If further observation proves them correct or show that they are wrong we'll correct as needed. I am not saying that they could be wrong, they may very well be. Currently the data does not seem to fit that conclusion.

I think the link below will do a better job explaining the debate than I can. It's a series of videos by Potholer54. I find him pretty well reasoned. I'm sure there are others you could find also.

http://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 08:17 AM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(04-08-2012 08:11 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  I think the link below will do a better job explaining the debate than I can. It's a series of videos by Potholer54. I find him pretty well reasoned. I'm sure there are others you could find also.

http://youtu.be/52KLGqDSAjo

No, I'm not going to get my insights on this issue from "Potholer54." I don't know who he is, what his field of expertise might be or if he is in any way qualified on this topic, which is acknowledged by all sides to be about as complex as any scientific topic.

I updated my post above with a link to a primer by the Professor of Meteorology at MIT. That's the type of source I'm comfortable with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-08-2012, 01:41 PM
RE: Climate Science/Resources Thread
(04-08-2012 08:17 AM)Jeff Wrote:  No, I'm not going to get my insights on this issue from "Potholer54." I don't know who he is, what his field of expertise might be or if he is in any way qualified on this topic, which is acknowledged by all sides to be about as complex as any scientific topic.

I updated my post above with a link to a primer by the Professor of Meteorology at MIT. That's the type of source I'm comfortable with.

Potholer54 is a science journalist named Peter Hadfield. He worked for New Scientist for 14 years and was a contributor on science-related shows on BBC and ABC (Australia). He is one of those fellows that, for instance, takes a creationist or climate-denier claim, traces it back to the original source, and then shows how that original source may have been biased or just plain wrong. He backs everything up with peer reviewed literature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: