If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discover)   Let the Bad Astronomer explain why the 49 scientists, engineers, and former astronauts critique of NASA's global climate change policies add up to so much hot air   (blogs.discovermagazine.com) divider line 230
    More: Interesting, Phil Plait, NASA, geologic times, global warming, old-growth forests, denialism, basic science, Harrison Schmitt  
•       •       •

5493 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Apr 2012 at 12:45 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



230 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-14 12:12:19 AM
The deniers can't be expected to listen to science and reason, you know.
 
2012-04-14 12:24:16 AM
FFS... on the 15oth f*cking submission, it went green
 
2012-04-14 12:29:48 AM
Oh hey look ... another one of these.

I work in/on computers. But you should totally listen to my advice on the economy. After all, people who work on Wall Street use computers!
 
2012-04-14 12:40:55 AM
The Bad Astronomer can suck my dick.

Really. Please. Geeky redheads are hot. Email me.
 
2012-04-14 01:02:18 AM
In before the bastard with the green text that hates facts starts posting!!!!
 
2012-04-14 01:13:36 AM
The term "useful idiot" just popped into my head for some reason.
 
2012-04-14 01:13:43 AM
Because astronomers are climatologists... not.

Seriously, we're talking about a guy who not only sold out, but continues to have the word "astronomy" in his blog, despite 4/5 of his posts being about anything but. Just another idiot that thinks a degree in one subject somehow makes their mere opinions on every other subject worth listening to.

Nice try Phil. People and actual scientists who don't make their livings based on pure conjecture are starting to wake up to the lies about human-made global warming.
 
2012-04-14 01:23:45 AM

J. Frank Parnell: The term "useful idiot" just popped into my head for some reason.


I'm sticking with the useful idiots. The useless idiots are just annoying.
 
2012-04-14 01:26:45 AM

Confabulat: The deniers can't be expected to listen to science and reason, you know.


I can't believe the thread went south i just 3 posts. Hooray 3rd grade grasp of science!
 
2012-04-14 01:29:36 AM
I'm a white male, so I can't subscribe to global warming because if I admit to one thing that the lefties do, I automatically become a lefty on all issues. I don't want to become a homosexual, single parent, black, muslim, woman, vegan, college graduate, abortionist. I might be discriminated against.
 
2012-04-14 01:30:29 AM
People are still debating climate change? Seems like a lot of effort that could be better spent trying to fix the problem instead of repeatedly diagnose it.
 
2012-04-14 01:37:54 AM
Let's try a different approach in this thread. If you don't think AGW is real tell me where your objection is at and why. What alternate explanation do you have that better explains the data?

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (new window)
2. Humans are emitting (new window) CO2
3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising (new window)
4. The Earth is accumulating heat (new window)
5. Temperatures are trending upward (new window)
6. The planet is already reacting to warmer temperatures (new window): springs are coming earlier, plant and animal species are moving poleward, glaciers are shrinking
7. An independent team of climate change skeptics from Berkeley Earth (new window) performed an analysis that confirms AGW/ACC
8. It's not the Sun (new window) or cosmic rays (new window)
 
2012-04-14 01:48:10 AM
If you want to see just how deep the bullshiat runs, and what an organized effort this is, google "polar bears global warming", check out a few, rather dramatic articles, then read these ones, dealing with people actually living near these places, and not just taking peoples word for it.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2007/04/25/arviat-bears.htm l

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/endangered-polar-bear-p o pulations-booming/

And finally, the most recent and irrefutable:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/healthy-polar-bear-count - confounds-doomsayers/article2392523/

And just because i like science so much, i'll post this again:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c27_1327015448

You'll see no change in annual ice melt, at all. Maybe the satellite is in on the conspiracy to disprove AGW?
 
2012-04-14 01:49:24 AM
For some reason spaces were added in some of those links. Just remove them.
 
2012-04-14 01:54:42 AM

Baryogenesis: Let's try a different approach in this thread. If you don't think AGW is real tell me where your objection is at and why. What alternate explanation do you have that better explains the data?

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (new window)
2. Humans are emitting (new window) CO2
3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising (new window)
4. The Earth is accumulating heat (new window)
5. Temperatures are trending upward (new window)
6. The planet is already reacting to warmer temperatures (new window): springs are coming earlier, plant and animal species are moving poleward, glaciers are shrinking
7. An independent team of climate change skeptics from Berkeley Earth (new window) performed an analysis that confirms AGW/ACC
8. It's not the Sun (new window) or cosmic rays (new window)


As I understand it, Forbes has a pretty article summarizing what many climate change skeptics feel is the argument against global warming:

blogs-images.forbes.com

As you can see, the theory is actually a chain of at least three steps:

I. CO2, via the greenhouse effect, causes some warming.

II. A series of processes in the climate multiply this warming by several times, such that most of the projected warming in various IPCC and other forecasts come from this feedback, rather than directly from the greenhouse gas effect of CO2.

III. Warming only matters if it is harmful, so there are a variety of theories about how warming might increase hazardous weather (e.g. hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts), raise sea levels, or affect biological processes.


In this article, IIRC, there is not a lot of disagreement about your points 1-8, and it is my understanding that many AGW skeptics are largely in agreement with your points. The dispute is over the feedback factor in II, above with the claim being that empirically the feedback factor is much lower than what the warmists claim.

The whole article I linked to seems to be a good understanding of what skeptics claim, and if so, reading it would help warmists from attacking strawmen.

That said, there are certainly skeptics that argue (your point 8) the sun does have a much larger role than is being acknowledged by warmists.

I am actually curious, the Forbes article I linked to claims to summarize the current state of thinking of global climate change. What do the climatologists in this theory think of that? What is the article missing? Getting right? Getting wrong?
 
2012-04-14 01:54:58 AM

thespindrifter: Because astronomers are climatologists... not.

Seriously, we're talking about a guy who not only sold out, but continues to have the word "astronomy" in his blog, despite 4/5 of his posts being about anything but. Just another idiot that thinks a degree in one subject somehow makes their mere opinions on every other subject worth listening to.

Nice try Phil. People and actual scientists who don't make their livings based on pure conjecture are starting to wake up to the lies about human-made global warming.


You don't have to have a degree in anything to recognize an appeal to authority fallacy, and that is what a bunch of engineers and military pilots are when you cite them as authorities on climate change. Only climate scientists are authorities on climate change. Not retired nuclear scientists (Fred Singer), not retired political wonks with degrees in Classics (Lord Moncton), not NASA janitors, and not Astronauts.

The Bad Astronomer is a rational and well-informed critic of science with genuine scientific credentials without the authority of a climatologist, but that's like saying he's a restaurant critic and not a chef. He is entitled to an informed and logical argument against bad cooking just as you don't need a Cordon Bleu certificat to tell that the fish is off.

Any scientist has more real authority than an engineer or an astronaut or a right wing think tank specializing in PR for industry and lobbying against science that inconveniences industry.

You do not have to be an authority on any subject to recognize an informal logical fallacy or a formal error in logic.

Speaking of logical fallacies you have committed several in a couple of sentences.

Ad hominem "he's a sell-out"; asserting that he's a sell-out without any proof, thus begging the question (which as you may know does NOT mean "raising the question"); complaining that he uses the word "astronomy" in his blog, an absurdity since he is an astronomer and might well allude to the fact in a blog title and is entitled to talk about any damn thing he wants to discuss--it's a blog, not a scientific paper; and most ironically and absurdly, charging HIM with an appeal to authority fallacy while defending a real appeal to authority fallacy by the NASA non-scientists: "Just another idiot that thinks a degree in one subject somehow makes their mere opinions on every other subject worth listening to."

Only one of the names on that letter is from a climatologist. The 36,000 signature Oregon Petition has only a handful of climatogists or even meteorologists larded with thousands of signatures from students, engineers, medical researchers and other conservatives with no qualifications to speak scientifically or with authority on anything related to climate science.

You might as well defend a letter written by Hollywood actors claiming that vaccines cause autism by pointing out that the guy who is criticizing the letter is not a medical researcher. He doesn't have to be because he is not claiming to be an authority on climate science any more than I am. He is just using logic, argument and the facts established by climatologists to critique the ludicrous political manoeuvres of people who are not climatologists. They have no business writing a letter telling their employer's climatologists not to do climatology because climatology is bunk unless they themselves have sufficiently authority, arguments, facts and logic to back up their claims. It's just a political stunt by non-authorities attempting to use and abuse the good name of NASA against NASA.

It's as absurd as that creationist nutter who was a sub-contractor at NASA in the 1970s making bogus claims about NASA covering up a "missing day" in a computer simulation which he claimed was the day that Josuah stopped the Sun from setting so the Israelites could win a battle against the Canaanites. How the Hell does that work? That was a bare-faced lie (i.e. an urban legend, a rumour) and perfectly absurd since a computer programme simply can't prove such a thing--if it is out of whack by a day it was clearly an error in programming--you can't "uncover" an error in chronology with a simulation any more than you can find a missing person with a video game.

It's a pity if right wing ideologues are employed by NASA, but it doesn't do a damn thing to strengthen or enfeeble a poltical parti pris against science to quote the stupid feckers. There's a vicious circle involved if you make manifestos by partisans the proof of the correctness of the claims of manifests by partisans. And begging of even more questions than the correctness of the claims.

Creationists, zero point energy cranks, UFOlogists and all sorts of cranks, loonies, paranoids, conspiracy theorists resort to this sort of thing all the time. One of their number is employed by the US Government or NASA or some other organization and they claim that is proof they are right and that there is a government cover up. As far as I know, you don't have to reveal your crank opinions before you are hired by the US government. In fact, the US government has put its imprimatur on all sorts of crankery, such as homeopathic medicine and climate change denialism. It has also supported allopathic medicine and climat change science. In fact, it has done both simulataneously, paying scientists like those at NASA to study and provide evidence of global warming while denying, twisting and covering up their conclusions at the political level.

This is Fred S. Singer's job description for the last fifty years, in fact. He has been employed by right wing Republican governments to produce reports that betray the science and the government scientists that provide the science. He's a rapidly conservative Cold Warrior who thinks most scientists are a bunch of Commies. He has fought the facts on acid rain, airplane contrails, ozone layer depletion, and now global warming. He's a gun for hire with no credentials in any of these areas but he has one idea--to kill incovenient truths for industry and right wing government. And that is all he needs to be put in charge of damage control by writing the politicized summing ups of the science your tax dollars pay for.

You are entitled to your money's worth on government science, but not to the answer you or your political masters and owners want.

Read Merchants of Doubt. It'll give you a very good idea of how that works.
 
2012-04-14 02:05:52 AM

Underwater Bystander: People are still debating climate change? Seems like a lot of effort that could be better spent trying to fix the problem instead of repeatedly diagnose it.


Step 1. Stop buying stuff that is imported.

Cargo ships put out so much pollution that you really have to step back and realize there is not a single thing you can do in a lifetime to make any difference.
 
2012-04-14 02:11:13 AM
I'm not sure why the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is considered an authority on climate change. Apart from supporting other agencies (like, say, NOAA, whose task it actually is to be an authority on such matters) with satellite and aircraft support, NASA should leave climate science to climate agencies.

IOW, put the climate scientists in NOAA where they belong, and quit sullying up my nice aviation agency.
 
2012-04-14 02:13:10 AM

RoyBatty: The dispute is over the feedback factor in II, above with the claim being that empirically the feedback factor is much lower than what the warmists claim.


Climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels is +3C. Here is a short list of papers: Link (new window)

RoyBatty: The whole article I linked to seems to be a good understanding of what skeptics claim, and if so, reading it would help warmists from attacking strawmen.


You didn't actually link it. But please, share with me *exactly* what you think the problem is with AGW. If it's just climate sensitivity, there's strong agreement that it's around ~3C.
 
2012-04-14 02:14:49 AM

Baryogenesis: Let's try a different approach in this thread. If you don't think AGW is real tell me where your objection is at and why. What alternate explanation do you have that better explains the data?

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (new window)
2. Humans are emitting (new window) CO2
3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are rising (new window)
4. The Earth is accumulating heat (new window)
5. Temperatures are trending upward (new window)
6. The planet is already reacting to warmer temperatures (new window): springs are coming earlier, plant and animal species are moving poleward, glaciers are shrinking
7. An independent team of climate change skeptics from Berkeley Earth (new window) performed an analysis that confirms AGW/ACC
8. It's not the Sun (new window) or cosmic rays (new window)


Volcanoes. Check and mate.

I kid, but people still tell me this and still swear it's true.
 
2012-04-14 02:17:35 AM
I'd like to correct an error in my previous post.

I said ONE climatologist. That was hasty and based on a quick glance at the qualifications of the 49 signatories as reported by climate denialists some days ago.

A more skeptical eye turned on the list says NOT ONE climatologist:

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers. You can review the signatories for yourself here.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/12/463683/nasa-climate-skept i cs-respond-with-science-just-kidding/?mobile=nc

The janitors at NASA are up in arms against the scientists again! Woo-woo!

I'm just kidding. But I am making a valid point at the same time.

The actual list can be reviewed on a denialist site. It is more accurate it seems:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss - under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to- look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/

Here's the guy who mislead me to say that one climatologist signed the list:

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller - JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

As you can see, he is not a climatologist. He is a meteorologist. A meteorologist is a person who thinks they know something about science. Like an engineer, only stupider. They make the error of supposing that climatology is like meteorology--chaotic and unpredictable. Actually, the law of large numbers smooths out many of the chaotic elements in meteorology.

I always use the analogy of an astromer trying to predict two things: the position of the planet Jupiter in it's orbit 10,000 years from know, and the position of a space pebble the size of the palm of your hand in a year. Clearly the gravity of every body tugs on every other body. As we know, there is a problem predicting a gravitational system with three or more bodies.

But it is easier, much easier to know exactly where Jupiter will be in 10,000 years than to know where a random speck of dust will be in ten minutes. Jupiter is so large that it is somewhat predictable--basically the three body problem collapses to a two body problem, which can be solved. At least you don't have to predict where Jupiter wil be to the nearest millimeter. It is so big that getting it off by a few million miles may not be considered an unacceptible margin of error over a 10,000 year period. No so with pebbles and dust. If you mis-predict the locatio of a golf ball by a mile, let alone several million miles, you are not going to find the golf ball and you'll have to take a penalty.

Meteorologists are best at predicting the position of golf balls. They are lousy at predicting the weather over a four day window. Cosmetologists are looking for galaxies, astronomers for stars and planets. No problem. Well, a lot of problems sometimes, but at least we know where our gas giants are with a reasonable degree of certitude, as far as scientists are certain about anything.

Oh, noes! The NASA janitors have been joined by the Channel Six weather girl! We're dooooooooomed!

Now that's sarcasm! Well, maybe satire or irony as well.
 
2012-04-14 02:26:11 AM

Trackball: Underwater Bystander: People are still debating climate change? Seems like a lot of effort that could be better spent trying to fix the problem instead of repeatedly diagnose it.

Step 1. Stop buying stuff that is imported.

Cargo ships put out so much pollution that you really have to step back and realize there is not a single thing you can do in a lifetime to make any difference.


Good luck doing that. Have you tried buying stuff that isn't imported?
 
2012-04-14 02:33:24 AM
It's a lot harder to explain why there WOULDN'T be man-made climate change than to accept that all the facts indicate it almost certainly is.

But that's ok, the deniers have made up their minds it's all a big worldwide scientific conspiracy to make the climatologists rich and to destroy America, isn't that right? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Climate change deniers are no better than creationists. No amount of education or knowledge will move them from their ignorance.
 
2012-04-14 02:34:21 AM

Baryogenesis: RoyBatty: The dispute is over the feedback factor in II, above with the claim being that empirically the feedback factor is much lower than what the warmists claim.

Climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels is +3C. Here is a short list of papers: Link (new window)

RoyBatty: The whole article I linked to seems to be a good understanding of what skeptics claim, and if so, reading it would help warmists from attacking strawmen.

You didn't actually link it. But please, share with me *exactly* what you think the problem is with AGW. If it's just climate sensitivity, there's strong agreement that it's around ~3C.


Sorry about that, I thought I had linked it around the chart but for some reason it's not there.

Here is the link http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the- g lobal-warming-debate/ (new window)

I don't have a problem with AGW theory itself.

But I have been persuaded by looking at the documents (emails, investigations, etc.) that Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Rajendra Pachauri and others have acted terribly. And that any reasonable scientist, physicist, chemist, engineer if they read the emails and read the investigations and the critques of the investigations would come away appalled and troubled by their behavior.

And in that, I know there are plenty of qualified individuals, including Judith Curry that agree and support that view.

I also am bothered with Phil Plait's and so many others appeals to authority.

I do believe that it's entirely unreasonable to claim that Ph.D scientists in physics, chemistry, engineering, and mathematicians somehow do not have the credentials to enable them to understand the research, the papers, the methods of climate science or make qualified complaints about the models.

The way most fields have developed is through wide exchange of ideas between these groups of people. Physicists that became chemists or biologists. I can only think that it is climate science that somehow these people are unqualified to understand the science. And there is no explanation for that.

Then to quote a commenter in the Phil Plait thread:

49 scientists, engineers, and astronauts, with many phds and literally hundreds of years of experience at NASA and in government understand the politics and careerism at NASA and make them very well qualified in discussing how that works at NASA. And I think they are completely qualified to speak as to the merits of the science as well.

Phil Plait narrows down qualified experts to working climate scientist. Brantgoose informs us that Monckton's degree is in the Classics. And yet, every day we see journalists, and journalists like Chris Mooney, or Keith Kloor, or Andrew Revkin, or journalists like Joe Romm who is NOT a working climate scientist (anymore, to the best of my knowledge) or even just random people in FARK threads that claim knowledge but will not discuss their affiliations telling us we must reject deniers and yet, it seems the logical conclusion of Plait and all of these calls is that we cannot trust them, as they are necessarily ignorant as to the issues.

Did any climate scientist ever use the American Physical Society 2007 endorsement of AGW to describe any consensus of scientists or as any reason to believe AGW is real?

On what basis did that occur, and how does that align with Phil Plait's insistence, matched in so many FARK threads, that the majority of APS members are unqualified to make any statement pro or con regarding AGW?

Why is an non-climate scientist's agreement with AGW acceptable, but their questioning of it "denialist spin, nonsense, and noise."?
 
2012-04-14 02:36:55 AM

brantgoose: Cosmetologists are looking for galaxies, astronomers for stars and planets.


Actually, they're looking for stylish new 'dos, makeup that won't run, and their damn comb, they swear they just put it down there a minute ago, and Doreen, have you seen it luv?
 
2012-04-14 02:48:23 AM

J. Frank Parnell: For some reason spaces were added in some of those links. Just remove them.


I like to think of it as an incentive for the lazy or stupid to use the farking link function.
 
2012-04-14 02:59:50 AM

RoyBatty: But I have been persuaded by looking at the documents (emails, investigations, etc.) that Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Rajendra Pachauri and others have acted terribly. And that any reasonable scientist, physicist, chemist, engineer if they read the emails and read the investigations and the critques of the investigations would come away appalled and troubled by their behavior.


A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming. (new window)

RoyBatty: Why is an non-climate scientist's agreement with AGW acceptable, but their questioning of it "denialist spin, nonsense, and noise."?


Given enough people, it won't be hard to find outliers. The broad agreement from non-climate PhDs and scientific organizations should tell you more than the small percentage of people who don't agree. But if you want, let's ignore *everyone* who isn't an active publisher in climate science. Works for me. What does that group of people say about climate change? What do the actual scientific papers say?

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. (new window)

www.skepticalscience.com


These surveys of out of field experts who disagree with the evidence for AGW are a red herring. It's a distraction from the issue. It's a farking *letter*, not a scientific paper. When a group of skeptics set out to independently confirm (or find flaws in) AGW they came to the same conclusion (new window) as the rest of the field. When the weight of the evidence is so heavily in favor of one side, why should we care what a Strongly Worded Letter™ has to say?
 
2012-04-14 03:01:21 AM
There's 2 variables here. Climate change is either real or it's not. As a race humans are either going to do something about it or not.

1) If it's real and we do something about it, yay, we just fixed a problem we created, possibly discovering some new science and tech along the way.
2) If it's real and we don't do something about it, we're going to fark up our planet.
3) If it's not real and we do something about it, we just spent a lot of money to discover some new science and tech along the way.
4) If it's not real and we don't do something about it, not a fark will be given, except by the most overbearing and obnoxious of the climate change zealots.
 
2012-04-14 03:12:37 AM

Baryogenesis: A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming


and

Baryogenesis: When a group of skeptics set out to independently confirm (or find flaws in) AGW they came to the same conclusion (new window) as the rest of the field. When the weight of the evidence is so heavily in favor of one side, why should we care what a Strongly Worded Letter™ has to say?


So here is what Richard Muller had to say about Mann, Jones, ...

I lost my trust," Muller says, referring to the alleged actions of the scientists at the centre of the "Climategate" scandal, which broke in 2009. The controversy centred on a series of e-mails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the UK that led to accusations about the conduct of these scientists, including the way that data were selected in their studies. Although all the CRU scientists involved have been exonerated by four independent inquiries, Muller, having read the leaked e-mails, is still scathing of these scientistsand he isconvinced that, while they did nothing illegal, they are still guilty of scientific malpractice and that big question marks remain over their scientific methods. "What bothers me is the way that they hid the data, and the way that they used the peer-review system to make sure that the sceptics' arguments - some of which I felt were valid-wouid not be published".

And here is what he has to say about the meterologist Anthony Watts


"lf Watts hadn't done his work, we would not have reliable data today. The fact that he did that means he's a hero; he deserves some sort of international prize."


And here is a statement from Judith Curry and Richard Muller

Below is a joint statement by Judith Curry and Richard Muller:

In recent days, statements we've made to the media and on blogs have been characterized as contradictory. They are not.

We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13 years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise, depending on the statistical approach you take.

Continued global warming "skepticism" is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process. The Wall St. Journal Op-Ed by one of us (Muller) seemed to take the opposite view with its title and subtitle: "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism -- There were good reasons for doubt, until now." But those words were not written by Muller. The title and the subtitle of the submitted Op-Ed were "Cooling the Warming Debate - Are you a global warming skeptic? If not, perhaps you should be. Let me explain why." The title and subtitle were changed by the editors without consulting or seeking permission from the author. Readers are encouraged to ignore the title and read the content of the Op-Ed.
 
2012-04-14 03:34:54 AM
Roybatty:

What, precisely, is the point you're trying to make? I see some vague accusations, but nothing substantial. Where's your evidence?
 
2012-04-14 03:58:46 AM

Baryogenesis: Roybatty:

What, precisely, is the point you're trying to make? I see some vague accusations, but nothing substantial. Where's your evidence?


My point?

Well it's not my point, but I am genuinely curious as to what AGW proponents think of the Forbes article I linked to. Not just the guy's conclusions, but frankly is his representation of "the theory of AGW" accurate? What is it missing? This would help me as a layman understand a bit more.

My point?

From what I've seen and read of the emails of Mann and Jones, of the investigations and the critiques of the investigations, of Rajendra Pachauri -- I think Muller and many others are 100% correct to have lost their trust in climate scientists, the CRU, the IPCC.

I think that Phil Plait and so many others make these really dumb ad-hominem fallacy filled arguments and self-defeating ones at that. The notion that you have to be a climate science to discuss climate science and being a physicist is not good enough seems to me to be 179 degrees opposed to anything I ever learned about science, or the scientific method, or the processes of science.

In Oreskes' paper she buttresses her argument about consensus with endorsements from "The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science"

Gedanken Experiment: if any of those organizations had written the opposite, would we be hearing from Phil Plait that these organizations or the majority of their members were not working climate scientists? If that's his argument for ignoring them had they done so, how can their endorsement mean anything?

So Phil's argument is an argument that takes Phil Plait, and Naomi Oreskes and the AGU and the APS and the Joe Romm's and the Chris Mooney's right out of the picture in terms of being able to discuss climate change.

And that's what I see so much so often about these discussions.

Bad behavior, terrible behavior, excused and defended.
Bad arguments, terrible arguments, made and defended.
Offensive behavior is offensive and should be embarrassing to "working climate scientists"

And it leads to all sorts of doubts about how Cap and Trade and other proposals for remediation would work, and how they've been politicized, and how they are likely corrupt as well.

I think that dismissing the letter from these 49 based their titles and degrees has been shallow and glib. And that in any other situation the Bad Astronomer would understand and acknowledge that.

The letters came out in 2009. News about Pachauri's corruption has been out since 2010. There has been ample time to shift these people aside and put some people in with integrity.

I guess that's my point.
 
2012-04-14 04:34:35 AM

RoyBatty: Well it's not my point, but I am genuinely curious as to what AGW proponents think of the Forbes article I linked to. Not just the guy's conclusions, but frankly is his representation of "the theory of AGW" accurate? What is it missing? This would help me as a layman understand a bit more.


The forbes article is guilty of the same tactics (intentional or not) as other pieces of denialism. A complete lack of evidence for points like "the feedback effect might be negative", graphs that use time spans that are too small so as to cherry pick data that appears to undermine AGW, a misunderstanding of climate science ("did climate scientists remember to include solar output?") are just a few examples. It's easy to tell the author didn't do much research on the topic before writing or he would have answered most of his own questions/objections.

If you're looking for a better understanding, here's a starting place: Link (new window)

RoyBatty: From what I've seen and read of the emails of Mann and Jones, of the investigations and the critiques of the investigations, of Rajendra Pachauri -- I think Muller and many others are 100% correct to have lost their trust in climate scientists, the CRU, the IPCC.


The scientists who were cleared of any wrong doing by multiple separate investigations? Those guys? The guys who have had results confirmed by other independent groups? Those guys?

RoyBatty: The notion that you have to be a climate science to discuss climate science and being a physicist is not good enough seems to me to be 179 degrees opposed to anything I ever learned about science, or the scientific method, or the processes of science.


No, you're misunderstanding the point. It's about putting non experts on the same level of authority as experts in an effort to discredit and undermine the evidence for AGW. Sure, a physicist will know more about the mathematics of climate science than a lay person, but that doesn't qualify them to disagree with the vast amount of evidence in favor of AGW. A letter certainty doesn't bear the same weight as a scientific paper. Fine, they disagree, let them do their own research otherwise their opinions don't mean much compared with EVIDENCE.

RoyBatty: And that's what I see so much so often about these discussions.

Bad behavior, terrible behavior, excused and defended.
Bad arguments, terrible arguments, made and defended.


If you want to have a discussion about the merits of climate science based only on evidence, then LET'S DO THAT. I think every climate scientist on the planet and the Bad Astronomer too would be thrilled, THRILLED, to not have to talk about the strong consensus or why a handful of people who wrote a letter isn't meaningful and instead focus just on the science.

RoyBatty: I think that dismissing the letter from these 49 based their titles and degrees has been shallow and glib


You're putting undue weight on the opinion (backed by no evidence whatsoever) of a handful of non experts while essentially ignoring thousands of others who support the consensus position. Where's their evidence? Why are there so few people? Why is their opinion more important than the massive pile of evidence supporting the consensus position?

I'll say it again. The letter is a red herring. It's a distraction. They have nothing substantial to say, no evidence to add, no primary research to publish. They're using their credentials to put a veneer of respectability to their completely unsupported opinions in the hope it confuses people who don't know any better.
 
2012-04-14 04:57:26 AM

Baryogenesis: RoyBatty: From what I've seen and read of the emails of Mann and Jones, of the investigations and the critiques of the investigations, of Rajendra Pachauri -- I think Muller and many others are 100% correct to have lost their trust in climate scientists, the CRU, the IPCC.The scientists who were cleared of any wrong doing by multiple separate investigations? Those guys? The guys who have had results confirmed by other independent groups? Those guys?


Why are you so ready to believe Muller when he confirms warming, but cannot believe him when he tells you that yes, those guys are guilty of scientific malpractice?
 
2012-04-14 05:09:12 AM

Underwater Bystander: People are still debating climate change? Seems like a lot of effort that could be better spent trying to fix the problem instead of repeatedly diagnose it.


what most people fail to grasp in these threads is that NOTHING said here makes any difference to policy, reality or pretty much any area of the issue.

Your belief will not change reality in the slightest.

"Skeptics will say, "temperatures have been flat for 10-15 years." Global warming advocates will respond, "the last decade has seen some of the hottest temperatures in the last 100 years." Both statements are actually correct. Imagine spending all day climbing to the top of a tall plateau. Walking around on the plateau, with every step, it is correct to say that you are at the highest point you have been all day, but it is also correct to say you are no longer climbing."
 
2012-04-14 05:11:00 AM
So

Getting colder

Is better?
 
2012-04-14 05:17:01 AM
"To defend the hypothesis of strong positive climate feedback, global warming supporters must posit that there are exogenous climate effects that are in fact holding down the increase due to CO2. Thus has been born the theory of man-made sulfate aerosols, basically pollution from burning dirty fuels, that is keeping the Earth cool. When the rest of the world gets around to reducing these emissions as has the US, the theory goes, then we will see rapid catch-up warming. Skeptics point out that no one really has any idea of the magnitude of the cooling from these aerosols, and that, ironically, every global warming model just happens to assume exactly the amount of cooling from these aerosols that is needed to make their models match history. "
 
2012-04-14 05:19:47 AM
Measurement Technology Bias - Improvements in our ability to accurately count or measure a phenomenon is mistaken for a real underlying change in the frequency of the phenomenon. A great example is tornadoes. The count of annual tornadoes appears to have increased over the last fifty years, but this increase is almost entirely due to Doppler radar and other technologies identifying previously unrecognized twisters. If one looks solely at larger tornadoes (class F3-F5) that were unlikely to be overlooked even with older technologies, annual counts are flat to slightly down over the last fifty years.
One sample makes a trend - This is less a flaw of any particular formal study and more a flaw in media coverage and among catastrophic global warming advocates (e.g. you know who). Individual extreme weather events are pointed to as proof of climate shifts, even when summary statistics show no such thing. For example, individual hurricanes like Katrina are pointed to as proof that global warming is increasing hurricane frequency and severity, when in fact measures of hurricane frequency and total energy (e.g. total cyclonic energy) have actually been decreasing over the last several years, to near all-time lows.
What is normal? - Trends in certain variables are labeled as "abnormal" or "unprecedented" or "not natural" despite our having an extraordinarily short history of measurements such that it is almost impossible for us to say with any confidence exactly what "normal" is. In some cases, recent trends are labeled abnormal or unprecedented even when that trend appears to be long-standing and pre-date man-made CO2. A great example is glacier retreat. We have good measurements showing substantial retreats in glaciers dating all the way back to the late 1700s (at the end of the little ice age). However, recent retreats in these same glaciers are portrayed as new and shocking and man-made, rather than in context of a longer-term trend (the exact same situation obtains with sea levels).
Everything looks like a nail - Climate is an extremely complex system with many, many variables changing simultaneously. It's a big, complicated engine we really don't understand that takes all these inputs and spits out certain outputs (e.g. snow in Washington today). Like a religious zealot that sees the face of God in his piece of toast, some observers seem to be able to magically attribute particular weather outcomes to the action of one single variable out of these millions. Even more amazingly, time after time, it seems to be the exact same variable, man-made CO2, that is unilaterally creating the result.
 
2012-04-14 05:22:11 AM
So how about the "97% of scientists" who purportedly support global warming? What proposition do they support? Let's forget for a minute a variety of concerns about cherry-picking respondents in studies like this (I am always reminded by such studies of the quote attributed, perhaps apocryphally, to Pauline Kael that she couldn't understand how Nixon had won because no one she knew voted for him). Let's look at the actual propositions the 97% agreed to in one such study conducted at the University of Illinois. Here they are:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The 97% answered "risen" and "yes" to these two questions. But depending on how one defines "significant" (is 20% a significant factor?) I could get 97% of a group of science-based skeptics to agree to the same answers.

Based on this I am in the 97% yet I am also a `denier`

how does that work?
 
2012-04-14 05:25:35 AM

RoyBatty: Baryogenesis: RoyBatty: From what I've seen and read of the emails of Mann and Jones, of the investigations and the critiques of the investigations, of Rajendra Pachauri -- I think Muller and many others are 100% correct to have lost their trust in climate scientists, the CRU, the IPCC.The scientists who were cleared of any wrong doing by multiple separate investigations? Those guys? The guys who have had results confirmed by other independent groups? Those guys?

Why are you so ready to believe Muller when he confirms warming, but cannot believe him when he tells you that yes, those guys are guilty of scientific malpractice?


I don't believe individuals in isolation. The weight of the scientific evidence is convincing, not one guy. That's the problem you keep having. It's not about what one expert or non expert says. Science isn't the sum of everyone's *opinion*. Science is about empirical evidence and in the case of AGW, the evidence very strongly favors one side of the issue.

And you need to stop ignoring the multiple independent investigations which cleared them of wrong doing (new window). Climategate was a manufactured controversy used to, once again, distract people from strength of the evidence.

dready zim: "Skeptics will say, "temperatures have been flat for 10-15 years." Global warming advocates will respond, "the last decade has seen some of the hottest temperatures in the last 100 years."


They will also respond that a 30 year trend is the shortest meaningful time span to address climate trends. Otherwise, things like a strong el nino ('98) can hide or enhance the underlying trend.
 
2012-04-14 05:26:57 AM

zarberg: There's 2 variables here. Climate change is either real or it's not. As a race humans are either going to do something about it or not.

1) If it's real and we do something about it, yay, we just fixed a problem we created, possibly discovering some new science and tech along the way.
2) If it's real and we don't do something about it, we're going to fark up our planet.
3) If it's not real and we do something about it, we just spent a lot of money to discover some new science and tech along the way.
4) If it's not real and we don't do something about it, not a fark will be given, except by the most overbearing and obnoxious of the climate change zealots.


I was told recently by a loud voice in these threads that nobody presents the matrix as a reason to believe in ACC. Thank you for being my vindication.
 
2012-04-14 05:28:50 AM

dready zim: "Skeptics will say, "temperatures have been flat for 10-15 years." Global warming advocates will respond, "the last decade has seen some of the hottest temperatures in the last 100 years." Both statements are actually correct.


No, both are not correct. The 5 year average has continued to increase, and the only way to get a flat or decreasing temperature trend is to start in 1998. That's right, in order to get a flat or negative temperature trend you have to start at the warmest year on record.

Here, directly from NASA:

data.giss.nasa.gov

Wait, then you go and quote a Forbes opinion article by a non-scientist? WTF?

First, Global Dimming has been observed over the last 20 years or so since our measures to stop acid rain lowered the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere. Second, there are no assumptions involved, they can use satellites to measure the optical thickness of aerosols in the atmosphere.

Again, straight from NASA:

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

I know you've been repeatedly shown how incorrect most of your statements on this subject are, so why not take Baryogenesis up on his offer?

Bed time for me now, damn insomnia.
 
2012-04-14 05:41:40 AM

Baryogenesis: They will also respond that a 30 year trend is the shortest meaningful time span to address climate trends. Otherwise, things like a strong el nino ('98) can hide or enhance the underlying trend.


Fair enough, so we had 30 years of cooling after WW2, is that significant?
If it isn`t, why not?
If it is, which is *more* significant, the 30 years between 1940-1970 (approx) where temperature fell or the 30 years between 1970-2000 (approx) where they increased and why?
What will it mean for the theory if temperatures fail to increase from this point?
Will that be criteria for disproof or major rethink?
If not, what is?
What does it mean for the claim that recent warming is unprecedented, and therefore anthropogenic, that temperatures rose a similar amount (about 0.9 degrees) to recent warming in the early 1800`s yet in a shorter timeframe (
these are a few of my questions.

/This is how science works.
//Figuring out the answers to inquiry strengthens it unless it is bad in which case inquiry weakens it.
///Science should be testable, repeatable and have criteria for failure.
 
2012-04-14 05:47:23 AM
That Forbes article was pretty much a waste of time.
His salient points:

1. Even Global Warming Deniers admit that CO2 warms the earth, CO2 is rising and mean temperature is rising.

2. "man-made catastrophic global warming" is not catastrophic enough.

3. There may be both positive and negative feedback associated with increased water vapor.

4. Climate science is hard. I don't understand it very well (and I'm a smart guy) therefore it must be impossible to understand.

Snark added by me, there is probably a little more that I missed.

#3 is the only part that I find interesting. I have heard conflicting theories here too: increased water vapor will trap more heat vs. increased water vapor will cause more clouds which will reflect more sunlight.
 
2012-04-14 05:53:06 AM

Zafler: dready zim: "Skeptics will say, "temperatures have been flat for 10-15 years." Global warming advocates will respond, "the last decade has seen some of the hottest temperatures in the last 100 years." Both statements are actually correct.

No, both are not correct. The 5 year average has continued to increase


data.giss.nasa.gov

But your own graph shows that to not be the case. You ARE looking at the red line and saying it is going up after the last green bar? The red line is the 5 year average, yes?

Today on sesame street we look at the difference between flat, down, and catastrophic rise.
 
2012-04-14 06:01:55 AM

Baryogenesis: Why are you so ready to believe Muller when he confirms warming, but cannot believe him when he tells you that yes, those guys are guilty of scientific malpractice?
...
I don't believe individuals in isolation. The weight of the scientific evidence is convincing, not one guy. That's the problem you keep having. It's not about what one expert or non expert says. Science isn't the sum of everyone's *opinion*. Science is about empirical evidence and in the case of AGW, the evidence very strongly favors one side of the issue.


Well, I've read multiple physicists and other scientists confirm my own experience which is that Mann and Jones are guilty of scientific malpractice. This is not one person. This is many people who read the emails and relate them back to their experiences in their education and what they were taught.

Baryogenesis: And you need to stop ignoring the multiple independent investigations which cleared them of wrong doing (new window). Climategate was a manufactured controversy used to, once again, distract people from strength of the evidence.


So I apologize but it's very late for me and I can't give you any good links, but just for kicks, one day, devote 2 - 4 hours to going through Andrew Montford's site and I suspect Watt's or McIntyre's and look only at the critiques of the investigations. Read the reports of the investigations, and alongside that read the critiques.

For the most part, I found the critiques of the investigations to be very accurate, and the highlights as I recall were that:

1) None of the investigations ever focused on the science though some claimed they would
2) The investigations were mostly focused on very narrow questions of specific accusations of violated procedures at the institution in question during the specific times Mann (or Jones) was there and would not look at anything broader than that
3) The investigations never asked the various critics of Mann (or Jones IIRC) to testify in any manner
4) And were mostly staffed by peers at the institution
5) And often spent very little time on the investigation itself

Dig up those blogs and compare to the reports.

When I did that I did come to understand that institutions run investigations like this with more of an eye to CYA than to provide justice.

So yeah, sorry, after reading these materials and examining on the net, I tend to think the investigations were mostly a CYA exercise and a whitewash.

I actually wrote to a couple of journalists (including Keith Kloor and Andrew Revkin) that cover these things at the time and wrote to encourage them to verify what the posts were claiming about the investigations or debunk them. I thought that might be a good way to shed some light on the investigations and the credibility of the skeptics.

Overall I have come to find that what a few of the skeptics write and the way they behave lends a great deal more credibility to them than what the various AGW proponents write and how they behave.

So for instance, I used to respect Phil Plait greatly, but when I see him using craptacular arguments as he does in this post of his, again and again, well, he loses credibility in my mind and any ability to speak for climate science on his part just gets tossed out the window.

Mann and Jones et. al., acted terribly. If we had seen anyone act that way in the Bush Administration in terms of emails or FOI denials we would have been all over them, and rightly so. I do not think Climategate was manufactured to distract us anymore than I think Watergate was, or any more then how we worried about hanging chads, or how Bush was stifling Hansen, or covering up for torture.

It truly bothers me to read people defend government officials actions to thwart FOI / FOIA and actually provide support and encouragement for that. It's ironic, because many of the people doing that at FARK would otherwise call themselves and shield themselves as progressives.
 
2012-04-14 06:02:00 AM

Two_Noodles: That Forbes article was pretty much a waste of time.
His salient points:

1. Even Global Warming Deniers admit that CO2 warms the earth, CO2 is rising and mean temperature is rising yet have other concerns and every time they try to raise them they are called deniers to shut them up

2. "man-made catastrophic global warming" is not catastrophic enough. Which means things won`t be as bad as we are told which makes the `problem` possibly a `boon`

3. There may be both positive and negative feedback associated with increased water vapor. So temperatures may just level out or not rise to `catastrophic` levels making the `problem` not a problem

4. Climate science is hard. I don't understand it very well (and I'm a smart guy) therefore it must be impossible to understand. And actually there are problems scientifically defined as `hard` that ARE impossible to solve with current tech

Snark added by me, there is probably a little more that I missed.

#3 is the only part that I find interesting. I have heard conflicting theories here too: increased water vapor will trap more heat vs. increased water vapor will cause more clouds which will reflect more sunlight.


also there will be more water falling from the sky onto land. At the poles this will be snow thereby increasing albedo at that point allowing ice buildup. Another negative feedback from increased water vapour. I`ve added some of the stuff you missed...

/problems
 
2012-04-14 06:06:50 AM
So, Bad Astronomer (hint in the name) is not a working climatologist so according to some we should ignore everything he says on the subject?

Is that the way it works?
 
2012-04-14 06:10:45 AM
That was a great clip about the flooding/droughts in TFA.
 
2012-04-14 06:32:49 AM

dready zim: Two_Noodles: That Forbes article was pretty much a waste of time.
His salient points:


1. He used the term "Deniers" to define his group

2. I suppose it does depend on whom you ask: Those living at 10 feet of elevation may be excited to be owning oceanfront property soon.

3. Opposed feedback is probably not equal.

4. Yes, lots of problems are hard to solve. We probably shouldn't try right?

also there will be more water falling from the sky onto land. At the poles this will be snow thereby increasing albedo at that point allowing ice buildup. Another negative feedback from increased water vapour. I`ve added some of the stuff you missed...

Snow has to stay put to affect albedo. Reduced polar ice coverage indicates this is not happening now.
 
2012-04-14 06:42:19 AM
There will be a green-texting attention whore in this thread eventually, who seriously believes in the Urantia book, and is therefore by definition insane. But give it up, stupid scientists. The Republicans have decided that AGW is against Republican policy, and no amount of facts can sway the true believers. Because you're not an American if you don't drive a V8 to go anywhere further than the front door.
 
Displayed 50 of 230 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report