Ah. So if we demonstrate that there was at least one thunderstorm somewhere in the world during 1829 (hence “electricity in the air” disproving Seymour’s claim), will you admit that you’re throwing up totally pointless anecdotal arguments?
The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.” And I recognize that your arguments have not been based on these types of anecdotes, and that your comment on proof here is not related to the current debate on climate. However, it needs to be emphasized that these anecdotes have little, if anything, to say about the evidence that climate change is linked to human activity. Simply because the climate has changed in the past, and in the absence of any influence from human activity, that does not mean that current conditions are (or are not) having an adverse impact now. It does mean that separating out human influences from natural influences is not a simple task. But natural changes are not something that has been ignored by researchers. Variability in measurements, changes over hundreds of thousands of years in both atmospheric composition and temperature, and variation in external solar forcing (among others) have all been taken into account, but much of the dicussions that I encounter seem to think that these issues have been completely (and even intentionally) ignored.
I am continually amused by claims that the consensus on climate change is completely driven by some broad agreement among scientists that climate change is a good way to force some grand political or social change. Anyone who has spent any time around scientists knows that one of the last things they like to do is agree - they would much rather find holes in theories and promote their own views. Dealing with groups of scientists is at least as bad as herding cats - they are all convinced that they are completely correct, all the time.
This characteristic of scientists’ personalities does not prove or disprove human activity is causing climate change. But the fact that the vast majority of scientists agree that human activity is causing change to the global climate is scientifically significant. The argument can be made that those who say that climate change is not linked to human activity are the leaders of a paradigm shift a la Kuhn. In reality, the change in paradigm has been taking place over the last couple of decades, as the concept that human activity could change the global environment has taken hold. I would argue that those who are claiming climate change is not being driven by human activity are simply holdouts from the previous paradigm, not leaders toward a new one.
That’s correct. The problem comes when somebody observes that growing seasons have been starting earlier and earlier over the past 10 or 20 years and says “Aha! Anthropogenic climate change!!”
Indeed, there has been an effort to get rid of things like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
I’m a CAGW skeptic, and I agree that human activity is causing change to the global climate. The critical question is how much, and whether human activities will cause significant harm. I doubt that a “vast majority of scientists” agree on that view.
Sheesh. Would it be too much for you to actually read my posts before responding?
jshore, you said:
Cornered? No way. And I have not walked away from a discussion because of that. Unlike you, when I am shown to be wrong I admit it. We were having a discussion in which we disagreed (as often happens), but no one was “cornered”, neither you nor I.
The fact was, I got pissed off by your pusillanimous, puerile, and pathetic attempt to claim that your failure to back up your claim with a citation was the fault of brasil84 and myself. If you want to wimp out of a claim, if you don’t want to back up your claims with citations, that’s fine, it’s your choice … but don’t blame me and brazil84 when you do. It’s a deal breaker.
w.
This is only a useful quality if accompanied by the self-awareness to know when you have been shown that you are wrong…which you have not, with a few minor exceptions, demonstrated that you possess.
I was complaining because I gave you a citation to a short review (what Science calls “Perspectives”) article from which you could easily have found what you wanted but you two kept insisting that I had to produce a citation directly containing the actual calculations themselves. I then (with a little grumbling) produced the abstracts of two articles describing these calculations (AND I later even produced the full PDF of one of those articles and also showed you where you could go in the IPCC report to find references to even more relevant articles).
To get us back on tengent, we also need the Green groups to get in behind slowing Global warming. They still fervently oppose nuclear power and want to tear down every dam.
We have to build more non-greenhouse gas power plants- and that means more dams and more nuclear. Not to say we should ignore Solar, Wind, etc.
With a little grumbling? What is there to grumble about? You accused us of not doing the legwork to find your freakin’ citation. I don’t understand what your complaint was. I also don’t understand why it took four requests for you to come up with your citation.
Look, jshore, are you sure you understand how this works? Here’s how it works. You ask me for citations … I provide them. You ask brazil84 for citations … he provides them.
But when brazil84 asks you for a citation to your claimed “hard calculations” … you cite a paper with no calculations at all. None. Not a single calculation in the whole paper. I ask, brazil84 asks again. You blow us off, you don’t provide any citation to any hard calculation of any type. We both ask again, and you claim we’re not doing the legwork.
Now you want to claim it was right there all along … sorry, but it wasn’t there. I don’t know if brazil84 looked, but I did, there were no calculations in your cited paper, hard or otherwise.
If you don’t see what’s wrong with this picture, I’m afraid I can’t help you. You claimed you have some kind of “hard calculations”, but you ignored requests tell us exactly where they are. I don’t want to guess where they are. I don’t want to try to find them and get the wrong ones. I don’t want to look and not find them. I don’t have time, and I don’t have the interest, to do your job for you.
It’s your job to provide the citations to back up your claims. If you are unwilling to get up and do that, don’t blame me and brazil84 for your lack of action.
w.
So are you admitting your “literally dozens of degreed, tenured, well respected climate scientists” statement was wrong, then?
I must say, I’m not seeing this in action.
Hi everyone -
I know we’re a long way from the OP, but do people remember the report (this one, from the Dept. of Ag.) the story in the OP is talking about?
Rather than make this thread a re-hashing of the the other thread on global warming in GD, can we make this about the report and perhaps say something different than what has already been said elsewhere?
For example, brazil84, you called the report “alarmist” - what specifically in the report did you see as alarmist?
Sheesh. Would it be too much trouble to read my posts before characterizing them?
The “alarmists” in your first post in this thread do not refer to the writers of the report in the OP? That’s a reasonable inference for me to make given that you are reluctant to specify who you are talking about.
So - who are you talking about if not the writers of the report, and if it isn’t the writers of the report, how is it relevant to this thread?
Frankly, I don’t see much hope in this line of inquiry, because you also said:
Unfortunately for you, evolutionary theory does make interesting and testable predictions - to be specific,
From here.
Evolutionary theory makes other testable predictions as well. For example, evolutionary theory also makes predictions about what we will find in the genomes of organisms as well as the fossil record. Morphological phylogenies of the Mysticete whales predicted the genetic similarities of the Balaenopteridae (rorquals and humpbacks) and the Eschrichtiidae (grey whale) in the 1860s, about a 140 years before genetic work would corroborate the similarity.
You feel the need to opine about topics you know very little about.
I suspect that may be one reason you try to avoid being specific. There are probably other reasons as well, but does it really matter?
By the way, here is a review by Chris Mooney of a recent book called “Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health” which describes the sort of approach that was taken by the tobacco companies and has been repeated since by others including those trying to cast doubt on AGW.
This particular paragraph is one of the best summaries I have seen of the basic approach that is followed:
Correct, and not only that, I explicitly defined what I meant by the word “alarmist”
Sheesh, the thread is only two pages long. Is it asking too much for you to actually read it before posting?
For me, a prediction means a claim about something that will happen in the future. To be sure, one can argue that statements about “what we will find” should be viewed as predictions. That’s part of the reason I said “not really” instead of “no.”
But anyway, let’s assume for the sake of argument that evolutionary theory does in fact make interesting and testable predictions. In that case, my point still stands.
Would you care to give an example? (Using the quote feature, please)
Waste of time…
China will continue it’s full-scale development with no hindrances whatsoever. In time it’s emissions will dwarf anything and everything western nations put together have emitted for the past +100 years, and worldwide we will all be starving/sick/dying. If we can somehow get the Chinese people to realize that making .20 cents a day is total BS then the cheap-labor gold mine will disappear and therefore will not be the prime motivation behind western companies all wanting their products made in China. Thus we would see China’s emissions level off, or at least slow down.
Then people in America who are in a absolute frenzy over global warming will demand from their politicians the immediate subzidation the building of enviroment-friendly brand-spanking new factories to produce zero-emissions/pollution so as to make all our widgets/cars/dildos/rubber-dogshit/CF-lightbulbs. So-called developing nations will be bummed to have the rug pulled out from under their feet, but tough-shit that’s life.
Problem solved.
*There ain’t shit anyone can do about this crap until the entire world pitches in.
Nope. 31,000 scientists signed the Oregon petition. And about a fifth of all climate scientists interviewed for the most recent study said that they didn’t believe in the AGW hypothesis. If there’s not a few dozen in all of that with degrees and tenure, I’d be astounded.
In addition, I loved your ‘but some of them are retired!’ protestation … yeah, and some of them retired from tenured positions too. So what?
But that’s all just a side issue.
I said that dozens of degreed, tenured, well respected climate scientists opposed global warming. Someone asked for a citation. I provided it.
Now you claim you don’t see me providing citations when asked … 'bout all I can say is you might want to consult your opthamologist …
w.
jshore, you say:
OK, jshore, you endorse Mooney’s claim that you can make “any scientific stance, even the most strongly established, appear weak and dubious.” Perhap you could apply this method to, oh, say the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Let’s see you make it appear “weak and dubious.”
In fact, Mooney’s quote is nonsense. Yes, all science is tentative, until something better comes along. However, this does not mean that we can make the Second Law appear “weak and dubious” as Mooney claims. If you disbelieve that statement, let’s see you make the Second Law appear weak.
If you can’t do so, will you admit Mooney is wrong?
w.
Excellent point, wevets, thanks.
Regarding the USDA report, their “Overarching Conclusions” (section 6.5) are:
Well … d’oh. Their “Overarching Conclusions” are that climate change (among other stresses and disturbances) affects agriculture, and will continue to do so. We don’t know yet what the effects will be. Existing systems are not very good for monitoring the effects.
Such stunning revelations.
Are we shocked and surprised by these findings? … anyone who thinks that changes in the climate have not affected agriculture, both now and in the past, raise their hands.
Nobody?
D’oh …
I found the report bland, boring, and without any new information. If the best the USDA can come up with is this huge report to tell us something on the order of ‘changing climate affects agriculture, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse’, we’re pissing our tax money down a rathole.
w.
The Oregon petition?!?! Man, intention, you really are getting desperate, aren’t you? For those who don’t know, this petition was originally “circulated” back in the late 90s…“Circulated” being a polite word for mass-mailed to entire science departments (e.g., physics depts, chemistry depts, …). It contained a ridiculously silly “article” that was formatted just like a contribution to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and had a cover letter from Frederick Seitz, a physicist who was a former head of the Academy but in his later years became a crusader for the tobacco industry and anti-environmental causes. The whole thing was so deceptive that the NAS felt compelled to issue a news release in which they said, “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.” It also said “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”
As for the signers themselves, you can see the petition project’s own breakdown here. I, as a PhD physicist, would be one of the most qualified signers, which frankly says how ridiculous it is (and this would be true on the basis of those qualifications alone, i.e., before I even started spending a significant fraction of my free time actually reading up on climate science)!
I like to say that the petition is like one of those old Soviet elections where you are bombarded with propaganda and then asked to vote with the only option being to vote YES or not to vote at all. Then, they add up the YES votes and ignore the non-votes.
Cite?
And, your cite shows nothing of the sort. You have a list of people, most of whom are not climate scientists at all and the few who are are well-respected by who exactly? Should we start going down the list in order just to point out how silly your claim is?
By the way, by my count at least 15 of the 41 there overlap with a list of ~60 people who signed a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada opposing action on climate change and on whom information can be found here.
You really do have two very different sets of standards for yourself and for other people! I can’t believe that this is the same person who whined in regards to the cites that I gave him to demonstrate that there were people doing hard calculations of past climates and climate changes in order to estimate the climate sensitivity because he would actually have to look beyond the short review article that I gave him (e.g., looking at the references in the article) if he wanted to find papers that discussed in more detail the actual calculations themselves rather than just briefly noting the conclusions of the studies as the review did!
And, this same person now produces a list of names without any demonstration whatsoever that these names fulfill the claims that he made regarding “literally dozens of degreed, tenured, well respected climate scientists” (which would be hard to demonstrate given that many of them are clearly not even climate scientists at all) and he claims that he has actually given the cite that he was asked for!
Ridiculous!!!
Well, you are the expert in doing this sort of “destructive science”, not I. However, I have often noted that if quantum field theory had controversial policy implications then there would be intention’s and brazil84’s running around asking how one is to believe a theory where you have to subtract two diverging quantities to get a finite result for a physical quantity such as the mass of a particle! And, if gravity were controversial, we would have such people asking how we could believe such a theory that noone has been able to reconcile with quantum mechanics!
Of course, there is a relative scale…It is certainly easier to attack newer theories near the forefront of science rather than older, more long-established theories. Nonetheless, Mooney’s basic point has been demonstrated many times, whether it be in regards to evolution or the health dangers of tobacco: the strategy is to attack a few trees in the hopes of distracting people from the whole forest of evidence.
:rolleyes:
If quantum field theory had controversial policy implications, I would scrutinize it with an open mind just as I have scrutinized CAGW with an open mind. This may come as a surprise to you, but some people do what’s known as “critical thinking.”