Resignation over flawed paper "debunking" man-made global warming

[Denny Crane]

Does anybody want to actually talk science?

*crickets* ... *crickets* ... *crickets* ... *crickets* ... *crickets* ... *crickets* ...

I try to

But there is a lot of politics to it. Like the whole concept of a consensus is a vote, not really science.

Did you read my post about how models work? Any comments on that?

 

[barfo]

Did you read my post about how models work?

Link?

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

I believe in constructive criticism bluefrog, but you kind of took a cheap shot I thought.

Apologies if you were offended.

You come across as abrasive and insulting sometimes and I don't know if you're trolling or trying to have a genuine debate. Saying things like "Damn you global warming geniuses got knocked out." doesn't help your credibility. Like I posted earlier, it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation.

I read the last CERN article Denny posted, sounds like they proved exactly what all long-term climate models show. CERN is not anti-AGW, and you need to stop the appeals to authority.

Actually the CERN CLOUD results don't prove a strong cosmic-ray/cloud/climate connection. The study represents a major step forward in our understanding of particle formation, showing the detailed measurements of the influences of ammonia, organics and ions from galactic cosmic rays. LINK

You tried to shrug off the CERN findings before, but Denny pointed out your weird analysis.

I'm not sure what you mean but even Denny mentioned that Kirby sounded contradictory on the importance of the findings.

The whole point of this discussion is you lose either on: (1) whether AGW exists, (2) the solution to AGW, or (3) whether warmer temperatures kill a higher amount of people anyway.

We are getting warmer and I'm convinced from what I've read that AGW is the best explanation. In fact, it is the dominant paradigm for climate research. Similar to plate tectonics with geology, string theory with theoretical physics or evolution with biology it has become the dominant paradigm because of empirical evidence, confirmed by numerous studies. There are competing theories, each supported by various studies, but they are disjointed and don't form cohesive picture of climate like AGW. There are holes in the theory but it can answer more questions than competing theories can. It's also passed through more scrutiny than other theories.

So what is the solution to AGW? I'm assuming you believe in cap and trade.... If that is the case, then you have a fucking stupid solution.

1. AGW has to be proven.
2. Your "solutions" for AGW are nonsensical, and I have superior ones that are not as ignorant.
3. Can you even prove AGW is bad?
4. Is 400 PPM of CO2 abnormal for the earth?

I honestly don't have any solutions.

I don't think there is enough evidence of a looming catastrophic event to warrant changes on emissions and such. I do think think emission reductions are good because of ocean acidification, air pollution, etc...

If the "alarmist scenario" is accurate then I think we should end the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century through government mandates, starting with energy and manufacturing. What is your superior solution?

Continued warming would be bad for many people because of rising sea waters and increasingly erratic weather patterns.

I don't think there is a "normal" PPM of CO2 for the earth.

Is there anything I missed?

 

[Denny Crane]

Link?

barfo

For you:
Link

For Nik:
Link

 

[Nikolokolus]

For you:
Link

For Nik:
Link

I like your take. Personally this is why I feel monte carlo type simulations are the only worthwhile models in the Earth sciences because you should only be talking about probabilities with events and phenomena that are subject to a myriad of variable inputs, contain huge data gaps and are subject to plain old fashioned luck. The trouble I see in many models in the work I do (sea level rise for example) is that many of them try to be deterministic instead of stochastic and policy makers like to take these results and point to them as points of fact rather than asking (or even knowing to ask) how these things are constructed let alone validated.

 

[Denny Crane]

I like your take. Personally this is why I feel monte carlo type simulations are the only worthwhile models in the Earth sciences because you should only be talking about probabilities with events and phenomena that are subject to a myriad of variable inputs, contain huge data gaps and are subject to plain old fashioned luck. The trouble I see in many models in the work I do (sea level rise for example) is that many of them try to be deterministic instead of stochastic and policy makers like to take these results and point to them as points of fact rather than asking (or even knowing to ask) how these things are constructed let alone validated.

The models I did for USGS were ground water flow. They'd put sensors in the ground and inject a kind of dye in the ground and see how it flowed to the sensors. You could know for certain the levels of the water table in a given place, but only within a pretty significant margin of error. The dye might be detected 60 ft. from where it was injected within a couple of minutes, but there is no way to know if the water table was flat within those 60 ft. or if the dye actually went up hill then down hill for part of the distance. Or if the dye even went in a straight line. Or if the dye went through a 20ft distance where the water table was deeper and colder.

It reminds me of how they originally mapped the ocean floor. They'd go out in a ship and every so often they'd drop a rope with a weight on it and measure the length of rope when the weight hit the bottom. They were quite methodical about it, but they missed entire undersea mountain ranges and trenches. The picture they had of the sea bottom wasn't very accurate at all.

So I'm dubious about these climate models because they are surely missing the "undersea mountain ranges and trenches" equivalents. It matters where you put your sensors to gather data. If they're on top of asphalt, and where they lay asphalt near by, they're going to read hotter over time than if they're on top of snow.

Then there's images like this NASA graphic:

The mesosphere might be 51km in some places and 49km in some places. It might have been 55km 500 years ago. Nobody was there to actually measure it, and trying to deduce these things is missing the undersea features.

Then there's the whole massaging of data to make the models produce the desired results. In the NBA simulation analogy I presented, I run 1M simulations and Portland consistently wins 42 games instead of 48. So to make them win 48, I shouldn't be using 60% FG for LMA or tweak the algorithm so Wes Matthews takes 20 FGA per game. But if I did those things and my model showed my desired result (48 wins), I could, in theory, point to the model as an accurate predictor or something.

 

[huevonkiller]

Apologies if you were offended.

I'm not normally offended, continue your attacks if you wish. I believe in free speech.

You come across as abrasive and insulting sometimes and I don't know if you're trolling or trying to have a genuine debate. Saying things like "Damn you global warming geniuses got knocked out." doesn't help your credibility. Like I posted earlier, it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation.

Yeah that is just fun trash talk.

Actually the CERN CLOUD results don't prove a strong cosmic-ray/cloud/climate connection. The study represents a major step forward in our understanding of particle formation, showing the detailed measurements of the influences of ammonia, organics and ions from galactic cosmic rays. LINK

Well you're wrong:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html

The CERN experiments clearly stated cosmic rays have a significant impact. Nor do I need CERN to prove you rely on statistical noise.

We are getting warmer and I'm convinced from what I've read that AGW is the best explanation. In fact, it is the dominant paradigm for climate research. Similar to plate tectonics with geology, string theory with theoretical physics or evolution with biology it has become the dominant paradigm because of empirical evidence, confirmed by numerous studies. There are competing theories, each supported by various studies, but they are disjointed and don't form cohesive picture of climate like AGW. There are holes in the theory but it can answer more questions than competing theories can. It's also passed through more scrutiny than other theories.

That is an abhorring comparison. String theory is a religious concept that can never be tested and has gone nowhere since the 1970s.

You are really going to lose a lot of credibility if you compare that to evolution or plate tectonics.

I honestly don't have any solutions.

I don't think there is enough evidence of a looming catastrophic event to warrant changes on emissions and such. I do think think emission reductions are good because of ocean acidification, air pollution, etc...

If the "alarmist scenario" is accurate then I think we should end the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century through government mandates, starting with energy and manufacturing. What is your superior solution?

Continued warming would be bad for many people because of rising sea waters and increasingly erratic weather patterns.

I don't think there is a "normal" PPM of CO2 for the earth.

Is there anything I missed?

Hmm, your solutions are still poorly thought out. Your priorities are in the wrong order.

The IPCC said maybe ~100,000 people perish in the WORST scenario (under 3%). Whereas 3 million people die of starvation every year. You want to make the quality of life worse for the poorest 1 billion people on Earth.

 

[huevonkiller]

The UN and KIEOs are left-leaning institutions btw. So no need to presume they are objective arbiters. They do not know how to run their organization efficiently either.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/the_globalwarming_debate_isnt.html

 

[barfo]

Actually the CERN CLOUD results don't prove a strong cosmic-ray/cloud/climate connection.

Well you're wrong:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html

You quote, as evidence in a discussion of science, something from the Wall Street Journal opinion page?

That's something much less than convincing.

The CERN experiments clearly stated cosmic rays have a significant impact.

Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, [Physicist Jasper] Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says. [Nature, 8/24/11, emphasis added]

"Our work leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate. However, at this stage, there is absolutely no way we can say that they do," said Kirkby.
[The Guardian, 8/24/11]

barfo

 

[bluefrog]

Well you're wrong:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html

The CERN experiments clearly stated cosmic rays have a significant impact. Nor do I need CERN to prove you rely on statistical noise.

No, it really doesn't. The study was about cosmic rays and clouds. If you can show me in the paper where the authors state that their results establish a connection between cosmic-rays, clouds and climate I'll be convinced. I think you'll find you're definitely wrong on this one.

From the WSJ article you linked to:

But while the cosmic-ray theory has been ridiculed from the start by those who subscribe to the anthropogenic-warming theory, both Mr. Kirkby and Mr. Svensmark hold that human activity is contributing to climate change. All they question is its importance relative to other, natural factors.

Through several more years of "careful, quantitative measurement" at CERN, Mr. Kirkby predicts he and his team will "definitively answer the question of whether or not cosmic rays have a climatically significant effect on clouds."

That is an abhorring comparison. String theory is a religious concept that can never be tested and has gone nowhere since the 1970s.

You are really going to lose a lot of credibility if you compare that to evolution or plate tectonics.

AGW is the dominant paradigm in climate science. Can you argue otherwise? How did it get there? Was it all politics and bullshit? If so you would need to question the whole institution of science.

Hmm, your solutions are still poorly thought out. Your priorities are in the wrong order.

The IPCC said maybe ~100,000 people perish in the WORST scenario (under 3%). Whereas 3 million people die of starvation every year. You want to make the quality of life worse for the poorest 1 billion people on Earth.

OK, what are your superior solutions?

 

[Denny Crane]

You do have to question the institution of science. Exactly. Finally.

Let me give you something to think about. What was science about before Einstein wrote his letter to FDR suggesting the US should build The Bomb? That was a political move, get it? Fast forward only a little bit to after The Bomb was dropped. Einstein (and others) regretted unleashing the bomb. What did they propose then? I'll let you answer that, but a hint is that it was political in nature as well.

So there's a HUGE change in the institution. What is it's evolution?

 

[bluefrog]

You do have to question the institution of science. Exactly. Finally.

Let me give you something to think about. What was science about before Einstein wrote his letter to FDR suggesting the US should build The Bomb? That was a political move, get it? Fast forward only a little bit to after The Bomb was dropped. Einstein (and others) regretted unleashing the bomb. What did they propose then? I'll let you answer that, but a hint is that it was political in nature as well.

So there's a HUGE change in the institution. What is it's evolution?

Are you saying politics has infiltrated science to the point we can't trust anything scientists say? Science as an institution has become stronger over the past several decades. Scientific methods are better, instruments are more accurate, understandings are deeper. We put a man on the moon, mapped the human genome and built the WWW.

There are mechanisms built into the scientific process to weed out bias. Some bullshit gets through but scientists are a skeptical group by nature (my dad is a marine scientist). People try to recreate the research or scrutinize the findings a little closer and the whole thing falls apart. I really like the analogy of a theory being like a house of bricks. The bricks are facts that have been proven through research, each builds upon the strength of the previous one and they combine to make a cohesive, logical structure.

 

[Denny Crane]

Are you saying politics has infiltrated science to the point we can't trust anything scientists say? Science as an institution has become stronger over the past several decades. Scientific methods are better, instruments are more accurate, understandings are deeper. We put a man on the moon, mapped the human genome and built the WWW.

There are mechanisms built into the scientific process to weed out bias. Some bullshit gets through but scientists are a skeptical group by nature (my dad is a marine scientist). People try to recreate the research or scrutinize the findings a little closer and the whole thing falls apart. I really like the analogy of a theory being like a house of bricks. The bricks are facts that have been proven through research, each builds upon the strength of the previous one and they combine to make a cohesive, logical structure.

I'm saying the opposite. Science has infiltrated politics and become as much about politics as about the science. Ike's famous speech almost was "military-scientific industrial complex" for good reason (he removed the word scientific at the last moment).

Following in Einstein's footsteps, scientists want to be our collective consciences.

There are a lot of emails describing how the AGW guys couldn't repeat each other's work and questions about how to fudge the data, etc. The methods might be there, but the will isn't.

 

[mobes23]

Scientists may have an impact on politics, but I think you're offbase about science "infiltrating" politics, like it's some sort of agenda that scientists have. You make it sound like we're all gunning to further our political agendas and science is merely our weapon. That's just not the way it is. I've worked in a Dept. of Energy lab, a fortune 500 instrument company, major university lab and multiple biotech companies and none of the scientists I've ever run across are anything like you portray.

 

[Denny Crane]

Scientists may have an impact on politics, but I think you're offbase about science "infiltrating" politics, like it's some sort of agenda that scientists have. You make it sound like we're all gunning to further our political agendas and science is merely our weapon. That's just not the way it is. I've worked in a Dept. of Energy lab, a fortune 500 instrument company, major university lab and multiple biotech companies and none of the scientists I've ever run across are anything like you portray.

It's subtle in all things not AGW related.

 

[huevonkiller]

You quote, as evidence in a discussion of science, something from the Wall Street Journal opinion page?

That's something much less than convincing.



barfo

Your portrayal of the article is hardly convincing.

Read it first before you try to imply it is an opinion piece from the WSJ:

The theory has now moved from the corners of climate skepticism to the center of the physical-science universe: the European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as CERN. At the Franco-Swiss home of the world's most powerful particle accelerator, scientists have been shooting simulated cosmic rays into a cloud chamber to isolate and measure their contribution to cloud formation. CERN's researchers reported last month that in the conditions they've observed so far, these rays appear to be enhancing the formation rates of pre-cloud seeds by up to a factor of 10. Current climate models do not consider any impact of cosmic rays on clouds.


Scientists have been speculating on the relationship among cosmic rays, solar activity and clouds since at least the 1970s. But the notion didn't get a workout until 1995, when Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark came across a 1991 paper by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, who had charted a close relationship between solar variations and changes in the earth's surface temperature since 1860.

"I had this idea that the real link could be between cloud cover and cosmic rays, and I wanted to try to figure out if it was a good idea or a bad idea," Mr. Svensmark told me from Copenhagen, where he leads sun-climate research at the Danish National Space Institute.

He wasn't the first scientist to have the idea, but he was the first to try to demonstrate it. He got in touch with Mr. Friis-Christensen, and they used satellite data to show a close correlation among solar activity, cloud cover and cosmic-ray levels since 1979.

They announced their findings, and the possible climatic implications, at a 1996 space conference in Birmingham, England. Then, as Mr. Svensmark recalls, "everything went completely crazy. . . . It turned out it was very, very sensitive to say these things already at that time." He returned to Copenhagen to find his local daily leading with a quote from the then-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible."

Mr. Svensmark had been, at the very least, politically naïve. "Before 1995 I was doing things related to quantum fluctuations. Nobody was interested, it was just me sitting in my office. It was really an eye-opener, that baptism into climate science." He says his work was "very much ignored" by the climate-science establishment—but not by CERN physicist Jasper Kirkby, who is leading today's ongoing cloud-chamber experiment.

On the phone from Geneva, Mr. Kirkby says that Mr. Svensmark's hypothesis "started me thinking: There's good evidence that pre-industrial climate has frequently varied on 100-year timescales, and what's been found is that often these variations correlate with changes in solar activity, solar wind. You see correlations in the atmosphere between cosmic rays and clouds—that's what Svensmark reported. But these correlations don't prove cause and effect, and it's very difficult to isolate what's due to cosmic rays and what's due to other things."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html

 

[huevonkiller]

Scientists may have an impact on politics, but I think you're offbase about science "infiltrating" politics, like it's some sort of agenda that scientists have. You make it sound like we're all gunning to further our political agendas and science is merely our weapon. That's just not the way it is. I've worked in a Dept. of Energy lab, a fortune 500 instrument company, major university lab and multiple biotech companies and none of the scientists I've ever run across are anything like you portray.

This subject falls into a grey zone.

Also do not be naive, in the judicial system scientific experts are highly politicized and bought. Tire experts for example will completely fabricate their testimony in order to help their client. Bite marks are often attributed to defendants when nothing is certain. Pretending Scientists don't have an incentive to scare is disingenuous. Sometimes they do, especially in new fields.

I guess you haven't noticed how these suckers in Congress are subsidizing dubious and inefficient technologies.

 

[barfo]

Your portrayal of the article is hardly convincing.

Read it first before you try to imply it is an opinion piece from the WSJ:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html

Ha ha. What do you think the word "OPINION" at the top of the page means, hmm?

barfo

 

[huevonkiller]

Ha ha. What do you think the word "OPINION" at the top of the page means, hmm?

barfo

Yeah until you read that these "opinions" are not all from the WSJ. They're from CERN and they report their conclusions.

 

[barfo]

Yeah until you read that these "opinions" are not all from the WSJ. They're from CERN and they report their conclusions.

Inaccurately. As you'd pretty much expect from something from the WSJ opinion page.

Try reading what the CERN scientists actually said, instead of what the WSJ wants you to think they said.

barfo

 

[huevonkiller]

Yes it started as opinion piece, unfortunately barfo not ALL OF IT is opinion genius.

Inaccurately. As you'd pretty much expect from something from the WSJ opinion page.

Try reading what the CERN scientists actually said, instead of what the WSJ wants you to think they said.

barfo

Lol at barfo trying to deflect from the REPORTING in the story.

the European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as CERN. At the Franco-Swiss home of the world's most powerful particle accelerator, scientists have been shooting simulated cosmic rays into a cloud chamber to isolate and measure their contribution to cloud formation. CERN's researchers reported last month that in the conditions they've observed so far, these rays appear to be enhancing the formation rates of pre-cloud seeds by up to a factor of 10. Current climate models do not consider any impact of cosmic rays on clouds.

Yeah buddy, this is what happened at the experiment.

Scientists have been speculating on the relationship among cosmic rays, solar activity and clouds since at least the 1970s. But the notion didn't get a workout until 1995, when Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark came across a 1991 paper by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen, who had charted a close relationship between solar variations and changes in the earth's surface temperature since 1860.

"I had this idea that the real link could be between cloud cover and cosmic rays, and I wanted to try to figure out if it was a good idea or a bad idea," Mr. Svensmark told me from Copenhagen, where he leads sun-climate research at the Danish National Space Institute.

He wasn't the first scientist to have the idea, but he was the first to try to demonstrate it. He got in touch with Mr. Friis-Christensen, and they used satellite data to show a close correlation among solar activity, cloud cover and cosmic-ray levels since 1979.

They announced their findings, and the possible climatic implications, at a 1996 space conference in Birmingham, England. Then, as Mr. Svensmark recalls, "everything went completely crazy. . . . It turned out it was very, very sensitive to say these things already at that time." He returned to Copenhagen to find his local daily leading with a quote from the then-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible."

Mr. Svensmark had been, at the very least, politically naïve. "Before 1995 I was doing things related to quantum fluctuations. Nobody was interested, it was just me sitting in my office. It was really an eye-opener, that baptism into climate science." He says his work was "very much ignored" by the climate-science establishment—but not by CERN physicist Jasper Kirkby, who is leading today's ongoing cloud-chamber experiment.

On the phone from Geneva, Mr. Kirkby says that Mr. Svensmark's hypothesis "started me thinking: There's good evidence that pre-industrial climate has frequently varied on 100-year timescales, and what's been found is that often these variations correlate with changes in solar activity, solar wind. You see correlations in the atmosphere between cosmic rays and clouds—that's what Svensmark reported. But these correlations don't prove cause and effect, and it's very difficult to isolate what's due to cosmic rays and what's due to other things."

REPORTING the opinions of CERN's Kirkby and Svensmark.

 

[huevonkiller]

No, it really doesn't. The study was about cosmic rays and clouds. If you can show me in the paper where the authors state that their results establish a connection between cosmic-rays, clouds and climate I'll be convinced. I think you'll find you're definitely wrong on this one.

From the WSJ article you linked to:

Dude you are completely unaware of what these two scientists have been saying in OTHER articles. Which I have extensively read on other occasions.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/

Brutal remarks.

AGW is the dominant paradigm in climate science. Can you argue otherwise? How did it get there? Was it all politics and bullshit? If so you would need to question the whole institution of science.

Not really, CERN just proved objectively that the IPCC's consensus doesn't take into account a pretty major factor. And the IPCC supports me anyway, so no need to preach. Also the appeals to authority are not helping. Medical journals are often wrong and that is the world we live in. Not all concepts are equal in science.

OK, what are your superior solutions?

My solution is to stop focusing on petty Bullshit that should be ignored, when there are superior problems. Do not kill off the 1 billion people living on 1 dollar a day. Wow what a crazy and frightening proposition. Listen to the UN's human development index on this specific matter.

Indeed, the UN is overall not objective sorry to break that to you. AGW is extremely leftist agenda and has been for a while, environmentalists are very left.

Also Denny believes in AGW, you are simply not paying attention to what he says.

 

[mobes23]

This subject falls into a grey zone.

Also do not be naive, in the judicial system scientific experts are highly politicized and bought. Tire experts for example will completely fabricate their testimony in order to help their client. Bite marks are often attributed to defendants when nothing is certain. Pretending Scientists don't have an incentive to scare is disingenuous. Sometimes they do, especially in new fields.

I guess you haven't noticed how these suckers in Congress are subsidizing dubious and inefficient technologies.

What's the judicial system have to do with this topic? We're talking about primary research, not expert witnesses (who, you are correct, are basically paid to have an agenda.) Research scientists and the peer reviewed publication process are at issue in this thread.

The "science infiltrating politics" quote from Denny is what I was focusing on in my response. It's simply not the way the vast, vast, vast majority of research scientists are wired. While there certainly are some big egos in science, any researcher knows that rock solid work (not political agendas) is the only way to maintain the reputation required to keep the grants and/or industrial funding rolling in. Any kind of falsification or misleading statements and their reputation and legacy are tarnished. Those things can happen, but it's pretty rare and not at all pervasive like it was implied.

 

[bluefrog]

Dude you are completely unaware of what these two scientists have been saying in OTHER articles. Which I have extensively read on other occasions.

Show your work, man. Convince me. All you need is a link to some article where the scientists from the CLOUD research explicitly says their results establish a connection between cosmic-rays, clouds and climate. If you read it offline, just tell me the source. I'll look into it, I promise.

The gag order you linked to just shows how politicized this issue is, it doesn't prove your point one way or the other.

Not really, CERN just proved objectively that the IPCC's consensus doesn't take into account a pretty major factor. And the IPCC supports me anyway, so no need to preach. Also the appeals to authority are not helping. Medical journals are often wrong and that is the world we live in. Not all concepts are equal in science.

Are you an expert on climate science? Have you spent decades studying the issue? There are people a lot smarter than you and I who have dedicated their life to studying climate. That's why I "appeal to authority". BTW, do you realize you're doing it was well?

My solution is to stop focusing on petty Bullshit that should be ignored, when there are superior problems. Do not kill off the 1 billion people living on 1 dollar a day. Wow what a crazy and frightening proposition.

I don't know where you get this idea that stopping climate change will kill 1 billion people. (not that I think we can just flip a switch and stop it) I think rapid climate change would absolutely kill those people and countless plants and animals. It would devastate world economies.

Listen to the UN's human development index on this specific matter.

Indeed, the UN is overall not objective sorry to break that to you. AGW is extremely leftist agenda and has been for a while, environmentalists are very left.

Strange, you cite the UN as a source to support your argument and the very next sentence you say the UN is not to be trusted. Which is it?

Also Denny believes in AGW, you are simply not paying attention to what he says.

I never said he didn't.

 

[jlprk]

I haven't kept up with this thread, but I see Huevon is still saying he doesn't like an appeal to authority, while he keeps citing CERN and Denny as his main sources. I earlier pointed out his hypocrisy, but I guess he just doesn't get it.

Here's something new. Since the American Right won't conform to what the world wants, more radical backup plans to fight climate change are being designed. These won't require cooperation from the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/science/earth/04climate.html

 

[bluefrog]

Here's something new. Since the American Right won't conform to what the world wants, more radical backup plans to fight climate change are being designed. These won't require cooperation from the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/science/earth/04climate.html

The article brings up a question I've asked before. If the world warms considerably (>3°) should we do anything about it? Would a warmer world be better for humanity?

I think it's prudent to at least research solutions to a climate that is inhospitable to humans. They are considering both long term solutions (carbon dioxide removal technologies) and so called "quick fix" solutions (seeding the atmosphere with reflective particles, etc...).

 

[BrianFromWA]

the Obama administration told the federal Environmental Protection Agency to hold off on tightening ozone standards, citing complications related to the weak economy.
...
Many countries fault the United States for government inaction on climate change, especially given its longtime role as a chief contributor to the problem.

First point, should we care about "many countries" and their concern about US inaction, especially in the rise of Chinese and Indian pollution since Kyoto?
Second point, if other countries want to spend the cash to do something that may or may not work, and may or may not have unintended consequences worse than a 1degree/century point increase in temperature, then more power to them. Especially if they can fix the problem without US help or action! Win for everyone!

 

[huevonkiller]

What's the judicial system have to do with this topic? We're talking about primary research, not expert witnesses (who, you are correct, are basically paid to have an agenda.) Research scientists and the peer reviewed publication process are at issue in this thread.

How are they NOT related? You get more grants from KIEOs for being lefty on this subject. It is a fact, you are simply ignoring that.

I'm talking about the preeminent scientists in the world being bought, not your second cousin.

The "science infiltrating politics" quote from Denny is what I was focusing on in my response. It's simply not the way the vast, vast, vast majority of research scientists are wired. While there certainly are some big egos in science, any researcher knows that rock solid work (not political agendas) is the only way to maintain the reputation required to keep the grants and/or industrial funding rolling in. Any kind of falsification or misleading statements and their reputation and legacy are tarnished. Those things can happen, but it's pretty rare and not at all pervasive like it was implied.

Well the University of East Anglia disagrees.

Also Al Gore won a nobel peace prize, as did Barack Obama for doing nothing. So yeah these people are very left-wing, as are most environmental groups.

 

[huevonkiller]

Bluefrog look up what "3%" means.

4.8 million > 125,000

Show your work, man. Convince me. All you need is a link to some article where the scientists from the CLOUD research explicitly says their results establish a connection between cosmic-rays, clouds and climate. If you read it offline, just tell me the source. I'll look into it, I promise.

The gag order you linked to just shows how politicized this issue is, it doesn't prove your point one way or the other.

Sure, I have plenty more articles from these guys, but I made my point already.

You got caught in a lie just now, these guys are supporting ME. They support my rhetoric not yours. You got cocky dude and assumed these guys were pro-AGW. I've prepared a pipeline of stuff from these guys in case you want to insist on arguing about CERN.

Are you an expert on climate science? Have you spent decades studying the issue? There are people a lot smarter than you and I who have dedicated their life to studying climate. That's why I "appeal to authority". BTW, do you realize you're doing it was well?

Yes I am an expert, I read this for fun and a great quantity of it. Lol at you trying to defend PHds as automatic experts or superior people.

That's not how life really works. Professors are often wrong, sorry to break it to you.

I don't know where you get this idea that stopping climate change will kill 1 billion people. (not that I think we can just flip a switch and stop it) I think rapid climate change would absolutely kill those people and countless plants and animals. It would devastate world economies.

Well this represents your lack of cognitive flow I suppose.

Cap and trade makes products more expensive and difficult to acquire. Take a look at what embargos do to poor countries. Embargos are very similar to genocide whether you meant to kill poor people or not.

Honestly you are presenting a very poor argument, and now you have no case. I am more aware of foreign policy than you it seems. You seem like you mean well, but your solutions are very creepy and a joke. Fuck Cap and trade and people that want to sacrifice the poor.

Strange, you cite the UN as a source to support your argument and the very next sentence you say the UN is not to be trusted. Which is it?

I never said he didn't.

Well read the sentence more carefully, "on this specific matter".

Dude you are a radical alarmist, I've already made you admit it. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Haakzilla]

...here is a solution, plant more plants!

Plants absorb carbon dioxide 25 percent faster than previously thought, say scientists

(NaturalNews) The so-called climate change "experts" that still cling to the mythical theory of man-made global warming are having an increasingly difficult time defending this flailing position. New findings published in the journal Nature reveal that plants, which absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) and release oxygen, actually absorb CO2 about 25 faster than previous estimates assumed they did.

Read More --> http://www.naturalnews.com/033877_carbon_dioxide_plants.html#ixzz1ayFpO0ZP