U.S. Dept. of Ag report: Climate change is damaging America . . . now

[MrDibble]

@intention

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.

None of which was your actual cite. I’m going by what you’ve actually cited in this thread.

@intention

In addition, I loved your ‘but some of them are retired!’ protestation … yeah, and some of them retired from tenured positions too. So what?

So they’re hardly tenured climate scientists, are they? When you say “tenured”, excuse us if we read it as “currently tenured”, as in “working in the field right now”. I’ve made it clear why I think the opinions of retired scientists aren’t of much import on work being done right now. YMMV, but you haven’t said anything to actually back up your opinion on why their opinions should count, while I* have* provided an example of an entire field (geology) where the paradigm shift in theory and methodology made some older work entirely redundant.

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.
[/QUOTE]
And your citation was shown to not, in fact, back up what you had said at all. Let’s get this clear: “provide a citation” means “provide a citation that actually confirms your statements”, not just kinda-sorta covers the general are of discussion - if you squint and stand on your head.

@intention

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 …

An irrefutably debunked citation is no citation at all. Especially when you then refuse to actually discuss the citation any further, because you “provided one”. You were asked to provide a list of “degreed, tenured climate scientists”, which your Wiki list was not exclusively of. This is a fact you cannot sidestep. So no, you did not provide a citation, you tried some legerdemain and say it’s a citation, but it’s not.

[MrDibble]

Oh, just by-the-by, when someone says “degreed, tenured climate scientists”, I expect their degree to be in a field related to climate (so geology, geophysics, geography, palinology, climatology etc are all OK), and their tenure to be related to climate science too. So a chair in cosmology with a mathematics PhD who happens to have an opinion on climate science is not a degreed, tenured climate scientist.

[MrDibble]

Ohe hell, sorry about that nested misattributed quote thingy.

[wevets]

@brazil84

Correct, and not only that, I explicitly defined what I meant by the word “alarmist”

Ah, brazil84 you never fail.

@brazil84

I am using the word “alarmist” to mean anyone who pushes the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. If you prefer, I will use the word “warmer.”

Notice that your definition doesn’t even answer the question? So again, exactly where we were in the last post: Are you calling the report “alarmist” - (“warmer” if you like)? And if not, what is the relevance of your comments to the thread?
Do you ever get deja vu, feel like you’re in the same place you’ve been before?

@brazil84

Would you care to give an example? (Using the quote feature, please)

Evolutionary theory, for one. You said:

@brazil84

Not really. Which is a real problem with evolutionary theory. What saves evolutionary theory is that (1) it’s simple; (2) it’s powerful in it’s ability to explain observations of the natural world; and (3) there are no serious competing hypotheses.

In response to a question of whether evolutionary theory makes testable and interesting predictions. I supplied you with two examples of testable and interesting predictions made by evolutionary theory that have also come to pass, the discovery of Tiktaalik and the molecular phylogeny of the Mysticetes. I’ll be happy to supply others if you would like.
It’s clear you had no clue what you were talking about, but it is highly interesting to watch your verbal gyrations to avoid admitting that. Please do continue…

[wevets]

@intention

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.

I have to disagree on the idea that the findings are bland and boring (although the writing may certainly be.) I think there may be a misunderstanding about the purpose of such a report. It does not contain any new findings, and it shouldn’t. The purpose of this report is to take what is already known and synthesize it together in an accessible fashion - AFAIK, no original research was completed for this report. Rather, it takes hundreds of scientific papers from disparate fields, puts their results into one place and tries to synthesize some useful projections from all those results.
Understandably, the overall suggestions may be a little vague, but there are some very interesting (to me, all interest is relative I guess) tidbits in the portions I’ve skimmed.

Increasing temperature causes the maize life cycle and duration of the reproductive phase to be shortened, resulting in decreased grain yield (Badu-Apraku et al. 1983; Muchow et al. 1990). In the analyses of Muchow et al. (1990), the highest observed (and simulated) grain yields occurred at locations with relatively cool temperatures (growing season mean of 18.0 to 19.8oC in Grand Junction, Colo.), which allowed long maize life cycles, compared to warmer sites (e.g., 21.5 to 24.0oC in Champaign, Ill.), or compared to warm tropical sites (26.3 to 28.9oC). For to 8 percent per 2oC temperature increase. Using this relationship, a temperature rise of 1.2oC over the next 30 years in the Midwest may decrease yield by about 4 percent (Table 2.6) under irrigated or water-sufficient management.

Lobell and Asner (2003) evaluated maize and soybean production relative to climatic
variation in the United States, reporting a 17 percent reduction in yield for every 1oC rise in temperature, but this response is unlikely because the confounding effect of rainfall was not considered. In a recent evaluation of global maize production response to both temperature and rainfall over the period 1961-2002, Lobell and Field (2007) reported an 8.3 percent yield reduction per 1oC rise in temperature. Runge (1968) documented maize yield responses to the interaction of daily maximum temperature and rainfall during the period 25 days prior to, and 15 days after, anthesis of maize. If rainfall was low (0-44 mm per 8 days), yield was reduced by 1.2 to 3.2 percent per 1oC rise. Alternately, if temperature was warm (maximum temperature (Tmax) of 35oC), yield was reduced 9 percent per 25.4 mm rainfall decline. The Muchow et al.
(1990) model, also used to project temperature effects on crops, may underestimate yield reduction with rising temperature because it had no temperature modification on assimilation or respiration, and did not provide for any failures in grain-set with rising temperature. Given the disagreement in literature estimates and lack of real manipulative temperature experiments on maize, the certainty of the estimate in Table 2.6 is only possible to likely.and Baker 1993); however, photosynthesis rate is reduced above 38oC (Crafts-Brandner and Salvucci 2002).

From the maize section 2.2.1.2.2.1, pages 28-29 of the report.

There’s information from 7 different studies brought together in that passage (I wouldn’t have been likely to read any of those studies on their own) and the information on yield responses to temperature is interesting and of relevance whether you believe in the ‘A’ of AGW or not.

Getting all that information together in one place, and assessing it for probability is no small task, and I’m glad someone has done it.
Yes, it’s not exciting like Jurassic Park, but in the real world, doing small bits right takes considerable amounts of work.

I think the political tag attached to climate change causes us to give short shrift to people who are doing a valuable, if not very exciting, job. To analysts and growers, using information form the report allows them to plan for projected temperature increases and releases them from the need to read all 7 other studies as well.
I’m rather sad to say it, but we all tend to be very small cogs in a large and complex society, and it’s far too easy to belittle the contributions which don’t have a lot of glamour, but keep the wheels turning.

[brazil84]

@wevets

Are you calling the report “alarmist” - (“warmer” if you like)?

Not at this point, no.

And if not, what is the relevance of your comments to the thread?

I was answering a question asked in the OP, which seemed to be broad and not limited to the report.

Here was the question:

@BrainGlutton

1. How much longer is denial on this issue going to persist?!

I understood that by “this issue” he was referring to the entire CAGW question.

Anyway, I’m tired of your verbal gyrations and rhetorical games.

For example, you stated this:

For example, brazil84, you called the report ‘alarmist’

Completely false, which you would know if you’d bothered to read the thread.

Then you assumed I was claiming absolutely that the theory of evolution makes no testable predictions. Again, completely false.

But not only that, I offered to assume for the sake of argument that evolution does make testable predictions. Which you completely ignored, presumably so you could continue to attack the irrelevant strawmen you have set up.

Sorry, but I don’t care to spend any more time playing the “show me where I said that” game. Please let me know if you feel like actually reading the thread and responding to the points that I actually made.

[wevets]

@brazil84

Anyway, I’m tired of your verbal gyrations and rhetorical games.

Perfect! Then we can dispense with all this tangential nonsense and find out:

What evidence would convince you that AGW is a strong possibility and not just hysteria?

[brazil84]

@wevets

Perfect! Then we can dispense with all this tangential nonsense and find out:

What evidence would convince you that AGW is a strong possibility and not just hysteria?

I am happy to answer your question, but first we need to agree on what you mean by “AGW.” I’m not trying to be clever either.

See, I accept that mankind’s activities are likely to be warming the globe.

You will note that I have used “CAGW” throughout this thread. By “CAGW,” I mean the hypothesis that mankind’s carbon emissions will cause global temperatures to rise enough to cause significant harmful effects to mankind.

By “AGW,” do you mean the hypothesis which I have been referring to as “CAGW”? Or do you mean something else? Let me know what you mean, and I will be happy to answer your question.

[intention]

@jshore

@intention

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.

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.

Jeez, jshore, I asked you a yes or no question – can you make the Second Law appear weak? Answer it, or fuck off. Mooney made a simple claim, that “all science” could be made to look weak. I invite you to test his claim … you just give us more of the patented jshore runaround.

So I’ll ask again - can you make the Second Law look weak? Because if you can, then Mooney is right. But if you can’t then his quote is nonsense, because he has made a specific claim that … hang on, let me look it up … “you can make any scientific stance, even the most strongly established, appear weak and dubious.”

He doesn’t make your claim, that some you can attack and some are much harder. He said “any science” … c’mon, jshore, stop fluffing about. Can you make the Second Law look weak? And if not, do you have the balls to say that you and Mooney are wrong?

w.

PS - Trying to find fault with existing theories is not “destructive science” as you seem to think. It’s just science. I’ve explained this before, but it seems you don’t understand how science works. Here’s the short version again:

1. Some scientists come up with a theory.

2. Other scientists try to find errors in the theory.

3. If they find errors, the theory is either thrown out or modified.

4. If they can’t find errors, the theory is accepted until someone can find errors in the theory.

Since you call step 2 “destructive science” and seem to think it is a mistake, what is your preferred option? That other scientists stand around and congratulate the first scientist on his brilliant work without trying to find errors in it? This is the common method in climate science … but in real science, they look for errors.

[intention]

Here’s the list of occupations from my citation to climate scientists.

Dormer Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg

Geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia

Environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist

Retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California

Hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester

Coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

Emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University:

Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University

Meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology

Retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin

Oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada

Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide

Head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo

Astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia

Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London

Member, Danish National Space Center

Environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa

Retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks

Geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)

Professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville

Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University

Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland

Geology professor at the University of Oklahoma

Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences

Principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University

Former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University

Part-time research professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia

Now, for some strange reason, some of you seem to think that a degree in Geology (which deals with one of the five major subdivisions of the climate, namely the lithosphere) means that you are not qualified to comment on climate science … but you seem happy to take the opinion of Gavin Schmidt about anything. However, I digress …

Of the folks listed above, some 25 of them are identified as being Professors or Retired Professors.

For the rest, we have astrophysicists, researchers, chemists, heads of research institutes and the like.

So, given that there must be more tenured professors who don’t swallow the AGW theory out there than are listed on Wikipedia, I’d say my citation does support my claim.

My point was not the exact number of tenured, degreed scientists as you seem to think, although my citation supported that point.

It is that it’s not just nuts and Rush Limbaugh out there saying that the AGW theory is flawed. There are serious, solid scientists, heads of climatology departments and holders of endowed chairs and members of the NAS and Emeritus Professors, who say the same thing. We ignore them at our peril.

That’s my point.

w.

[intention]

@MrDibble

Oh, just by-the-by, when someone says “degreed, tenured climate scientists”, I expect their degree to be in a field related to climate (so geology, geophysics, geography, palinology, climatology etc are all OK), and their tenure to be related to climate science too. So a chair in cosmology with a mathematics PhD who happens to have an opinion on climate science is not a degreed, tenured climate scientist.

If this is your point of view, then what weight should be given to ideas from Gavin Schmidt? His degree is in mathematics, as far as I can tell he has no training in climate-related issues at all … but y’all seem to think he’s some kind of climate authority.

And if you think cosmology has nothing to do with climate change, then we have to throw out all of the information about the sun, Milankovich cycles, the effect of sunspots on space weather and earth weather, the effect of the aurora on energy distributions, the passing of the earth in and out of the galactic plane, long-term variations in the solar “constant”, and the like …

Perhaps we could make it simpler, and you could just tell us whether a degree in, say, physics is good enough for you.

w.

[intention]

Mr. Dibble, you say:

An irrefutably debunked citation is no citation at all.

No. A discredited theory is still a theory. A debunked hypothesis is still a hypothesis.

I was complaining that when jshore was asked for a citation, he provided no citation at all. I, on the other hand, provided a citation you didn’t like. The fact you didn’t like it does not make it “irrefutably debunked”.

More to the point, it does not somehow magically make it “no citation at all”. You can tell the difference, because if there is no citation … there is no citation.

On the other hand, if there is a citation, you don’t like it.

See the difference? In one of them, there’s nothing to like or dislike, nothing to disprove, nothing to “debunk”, nothing at all. In the other, there is something to like or not like, to disprove or not.

Are you just pretending not to understand the difference between someone who does not provide a citation and someone who does (though you may not like it)?

Or are you really just not following the discussion?

w.

[MrDibble]

@intention

Here’s the list of occupations from my citation to climate scientists.

[INDENT]Dormer Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg

That’s “former”, and so not currently a degreed, tenured climate scientist.

@intention

Geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia

Current work is stratigraphy, and so not currently a degreed, tenured climate scientist. May have tenure, I don’t know if it’s such a big deal at non-US unis, I know it isn’t here in SA. Don’t see any work listed he’s actually done in the area of climate studies.

@intention

Environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist

Not currently a degreed, tenured climate scientist.

@intention

Retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Not currently a degreed, tenured climate scientist. And his opinions are certainly not those of his former institute, as a perusal of their website would show.

@intention

Mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Not listed as “professor”, and so not currently a tenured climate scientist as such, but I’m willing to accept him as such.

@intention

Astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Currently a degreed, tenured climate scientist. Loses cool points for being involved with Earth:Final Conflict.

@intention

Emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison

That’s “emeritus” as in “retired”, and so not currently a degreed, tenured climate scientist. Also, dude is older than dirt, but still doing research, so props to him and I’d buy him as a working scientist.

@intention

Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California

His research work isn’t in climate-related field, so not currently a degreed, tenured climate scientist. Plus, dude - petroleum scientist!

I could go on, but the rest of the list is similar.

Also, it’s interesting to note, as an aside, that by far the largest bunch are people who believe climate change is happening, but have alternate theories on why. This doesn’t have any bearing on the report under discussion, since even non-anthropogenic climate change will still affect agriculture the same way. I know you cited them as anti-AGW, so this isn’t saying they’re not relevant, but still…

@intention

[…snip]Now, for some strange reason, some of you seem to think that a degree in Geology (which deals with one of the five major subdivisions of the climate, namely the lithosphere) means that you are not qualified to comment on climate science …

Listen, I am a trained geologist, I know what geologists are qualified to speak on, and I know which sub-specialists of geology are qualified to speak on which aspects of climate research.

Are you a geologist? Do you have any geology training at all? If not, what makes you think you’re any better qualified than me to tell when the geology degree is relevant or not?

Plus, just because geologists deal with the lithosphere doesn’t make them climate scientists. That’s a laughable mischaracterization of both geology and climate science. While there are niche fields of geology that are climate science (the aforementioned varve counting and spelioform analyses I’ve helped do amongst them), just being a geologist doesn’t make you a climate scientist.

I mean, some vets deal with cows , and cows add methane to the atmosphere, does that make a research vet a climate scientist? :rolleyes:

@intention

but you seem happy to take the opinion of Gavin Schmidt about anything.

Have I mentioned him at all, ever? All I called i8nto querstion was your citation

@intention

Of the folks listed above, some 25 of them are identified as being Professors or Retired Professors.

Of what?

@intention

For the rest, we have astrophysicists, researchers, chemists, heads of research institutes and the like.

So not degreed, tenured climate scientist, then?

@intention

So, given that there must be more tenured professors who don’t swallow the AGW theory out there than are listed on Wikipedia, I’d say my citation does support my claim.

No, it doesn’t.

@intention

My point was not the exact number of tenured, degreed scientists as you seem to think, although my citation supported that point.

That’s rich - you said

@intention

There are literally dozens of degreed, tenured, well respected climate scientists who do not accept the AGW hypothesis. These are guys with decades of experience, and hundreds of scientific publications.

and then offered the wikipedia list as a cite, saying

@intention

Even the heavily censored wikipedia lists 41, that’s “dozens” in my book.

Taken together, that means you say that list is a list of degreed, tenured climate scientist, exclusively. Or that at least 24 people on that list are such, do give you the most charitable interpretation of “dozens” possible. You were certainly concerned enough about the numbers then. Enough to use the quotes around dozens and everything.

Oh, and you do realise that “emeritus professor” means “retired professor”, right, not “eminent” or “meritorious”.

No. A discredited theory is still a theory. A debunked hypothesis is still a hypothesis.

This is just disingenuous. So Flat Earthers are a valid citation for a geology discussion, now, I take it? TimeCube is a good cite for quantum physics? I mean, they have a theory, wouldn’t do to exclude them from the discussion just because it’s already been debunked. :rolleyes:

And if you think cosmology has nothing to do with climate change, then we have to throw out all of the information about the sun, Milankovich cycles, the effect of sunspots on space weather and earth weather, the effect of the aurora on energy distributions, the passing of the earth in and out of the galactic plane, long-term variations in the solar “constant”, and the like …

You really have no idea about the difference between astronomy and cosmology, do you?

Do you have any scientific training at all? Because so far I can tell it isn’t in geology, astronomy or cosmology. Or climate science, that much is obvious.

[jshore]

@intention

If this is your point of view, then what weight should be given to ideas from Gavin Schmidt? His degree is in mathematics, as far as I can tell he has no training in climate-related issues at all … but y’all seem to think he’s some kind of climate authority.

For me, it is not so much an issue of what their degree is in. The issue is whether they are actively publishing in the field of climate science (and, most specifically, publishing their ideas related to AGW) and how strong that publication record is.

I was complaining that when jshore was asked for a citation, he provided no citation at all. I, on the other hand, provided a citation you didn’t like. The fact you didn’t like it does not make it “irrefutably debunked”.

That is simply untrue. When asked to provide evidence that people are doing hard calculations on past climates, I provided the cite of that perspectives paper which gave an overview of what had been learned from looking at past climates and trying to model them and estimate climate sensitivity from them. I think for most people, it would have been clear that these demonstrated that such calculations were being done even if that paper itself did not provide the details…and if they wanted more details, it would have given them the references into the literature that they need to find them. [Later, I actually went and produced abstracts of papers…and eventually a PDF of a paper that actually did the calculations…with a little grumbling. You still haven’t produced the evidence that MrDibble asked you for to back up your claim.]

[jshore]

@intention

Jeez, jshore, I asked you a yes or no question – can you make the Second Law appear weak? Answer it, or fuck off. Mooney made a simple claim, that “all science” could be made to look weak. I invite you to test his claim … you just give us more of the patented jshore runaround.

So I’ll ask again - can you make the Second Law look weak? Because if you can, then Mooney is right. But if you can’t then his quote is nonsense, because he has made a specific claim that … hang on, let me look it up … “you can make any scientific stance, even the most strongly established, appear weak and dubious.”

He doesn’t make your claim, that some you can attack and some are much harder. He said “any science” … c’mon, jshore, stop fluffing about. Can you make the Second Law look weak? And if not, do you have the balls to say that you and Mooney are wrong?

intention: You seem to be reduced, like brazil84, to trying to “score points” by arguing these silly little things. Let’s assume for the moment that you are correct and in fact that Mooney’s statement is a bit of a hyperbole and it is not literally true that one can make all science look weak in this way but could only make, say, most science that is anywhere within shouting distance of the forefront of knowledge look weak in this way. Exactly what would that then prove?

At any rate, like I told you, since I am not an expert in doing this sort of raising-doubt stuff, I am not the best one to ask for a specific example of how to make this or that well-established theory look weak. However, I did give you an outline of how one could go about attacking quantum field theory or gravitational theory. As for the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a good start might be this paper whose abstract reads:

Over the last 10–15 years the second law of thermodynamics has undergone unprecedented scrutiny, particularly with respect to its universal status. This brief article introduces the proceedings of a recent symposium devoted to this topic, The second law of thermodynamics: Foundations and Status, held at University of San Diego as part of the 87th Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division of the AAAS (June 19–22, 2006). The papers are introduced under three themes: ideal gases, quantum perspectives, and interpretation. Roughly half the papers support traditional interpretations of the second law while the rest challenge it.

A law where roughly half the papers at a symposium at a reputable conference (e.g., not one sponsored by AAAS, not by the Heartland Institute) challenge the traditional interpretations of the Second Law sure doesn’t sound like a scientific law that is on very sound footing to me! And, here is a whole webpage devoted to papers discussing conflicts between the Second Law and quantum mechanics. I think an intention or brazil84 intent on raising doubts about the Second Law could have a field day with that!

@intention

PS - Trying to find fault with existing theories is not “destructive science” as you seem to think. It’s just science. I’ve explained this before, but it seems you don’t understand how science works. Here’s the short version again:

1. Some scientists come up with a theory.

2. Other scientists try to find errors in the theory.

3. If they find errors, the theory is either thrown out or modified.

4. If they can’t find errors, the theory is accepted until someone can find errors in the theory.

Since you call step 2 “destructive science” and seem to think it is a mistake, what is your preferred option? That other scientists stand around and congratulate the first scientist on his brilliant work without trying to find errors in it? This is the common method in climate science … but in real science, they look for errors.

Thank you very much for the tutorial…but after more than 25 years working and publishing in science, I think I have kind of figured out how science works. And, I agree with you that science is often quite adversarial, with scientists trying to find errors in other’s hypotheses, measurements, etc. (which is why a strong consensus in a scientific field carries so much weight…because getting scientists to agree makes herding cats seem easy). I myself have recently published a comment that pretty much trashed a silly paper that some scientists had published in the prestigious Letters journal in the field that I work in for my day job. And, I just saw another paper in a conference proceedings that I am almost praying sees the light of day in that journal (or another one that allows comments) so that I can go after it too. Besides my own selfish reasons, I think that this paper could serve as a poster child in how not to test what the authors are trying to test (and in which they alas makes errors that all too many papers in the field seem to be making in this regard), so that the field might start to apply higher standards for doing this sort of testing.

However, it is one thing when this sort of challenging of ideas is done as a process of truly advancing scientific knowledge and rather different when it is done, largely outside the peer-reviewed journals, as a way to raise doubts with the public and policymakers, concerning things for which there is strong agreement within the scientific community. Note, in fact, that I have never objected to Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer publishing papers in the peer-reviewed journals that try to come up with hypotheses of negative feedbacks and the like, even if these do seem increasingly desperate. What I do object to is Lindzen writing misleading Wall Street Journal op-ed pieces or Spencer writing silly pieces on Tech Central Station (whether it be about climate science or evolution). [Even then, I would defend their right to do this but I would also argue that it does, and should, undermine their scientific credibility.]

[intention]

jshore, you say:

What I do object to is Lindzen writing misleading Wall Street Journal op-ed pieces or Spencer writing silly pieces on Tech Central Station …

Funny how you’ve never said anything similar about say, James Hansen, who talks to reporters and writes op-ed pieces on a regular basis … but that’s probably just a silly coincidence which you’ll explain very soon …

w.

[intention]

jshore, I asked:

@intention

… c’mon, jshore, stop fluffing about. Can you make the Second Law look weak? And if not, do you have the balls to say that you and Mooney are wrong?

To which you replied …

@jshore

intention: You seem to be reduced, like brazil84, to trying to “score points” by arguing these silly little things. Let’s assume for the moment that you are correct and in fact that Mooney’s statement is a bit of a hyperbole and it is not literally true that one can make all science look weak in this way but could only make, say, most science that is anywhere within shouting distance of the forefront of knowledge look weak in this way. Exactly what would that then prove?

I’ll take that as a no.

As to what it would prove, it would prove that Mooney is a follower of Stephen Schneider, that’s he’s more interested in advocacy than in honesty, which should make you nervous but may not do so …

w.

PS - the debate you cited over the Second Law is over its universality, it has nothing to do with whether the Second Law is “weak”, in your terms …

PPS - there are two conditions, which are generally considered to be mutually exclusive – true, and false.

“A bit of hyperbole” falls in the second category. You, in defending Mooney, sound like my daughter saying “But it’s only a little lie” …

[Lobohan]

@intention

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.

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1747/galtlolkx3.jpg

Read the form that those 31k “scientists” filled out.

Check up on the reputation of the guy, who took those names:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

I propose that if you couldn’t be bothered to check your sources before parroting utter infantile rubbish, your opinion is meaningless. If you’re just going to blindly parrot the babbling of halfwits, why should anyone here take what you are saying with any gravity at all?

Please don’t distract from the holes in your argument by citing nonsense.

[intention]

OK, Mr. Dibble. I agree that if you throw out all of the retired scientists out of the list I cited, you are correct, there may not be two dozen currently tenured scientists there. Not sure why a retired scientist should get thrown out, seems a bit ad-hoc to prove your point, but I’m OK with that. Looked at from that point of view, I was wrong about the list, there’s 41 scientists listed there, but by your interpretation, some are retired so they’ve gotten stupid or something and should not be counted. Hope this keeps down the screaming from Dibbleville …

Please note, however, that this does not mean that on the planet there are not two dozen degreed, tenured scientists who disagree with the AGW hypothesis. It just shows that my citation did not include two dozen of them. Also, Mr. Dibble keeps claiming that somehow this makes my citation vanish, it turns it into “no citation” … which impels me to ask …

Mr. Dibble, how many of the scientists on the “no citation” list actually pass the “Dibble Test”?

Can we return now to the issue that brought all of this up? This was the foolish idea that somehow opposition to the AGW hypothesis is the same as opposition to the idea of evolution.

w.

[jshore]

@intention

Funny how you’ve never said anything similar about say, James Hansen, who talks to reporters and writes op-ed pieces on a regular basis … but that’s probably just a silly coincidence which you’ll explain very soon …

The key adjectives in my sentences were “misleading” and “silly”. I am not against scientists ever talking to reporters or writing op-ed pieces…although it is probably not a good thing if their communications through these medium seem to become much more prevalent than their communications to their peers through papers, conference talks, etc.

PS - the debate you cited over the Second Law is over its universality, it has nothing to do with whether the Second Law is “weak”, in your terms …

Well (continuing to play devil’s advocate here), it sounds like a law that is supposed to be a universal law of nature is subject to debates over its universality, then that is hardly a sign of strength.

PPS - there are two conditions, which are generally considered to be mutually exclusive – true, and false.

“A bit of hyperbole” falls in the second category. You, in defending Mooney, sound like my daughter saying “But it’s only a little lie” …

I find it strange that someone who is so concerned about the truth or falsity of everyone else’s statements (down to the most picky details) seems to care so little about whether his own statements are true or false. For example, I have never seen you either correct or make any sort of successful defense of these two statements:

The average of a number of models, on the other hand, is expected to equal the observed data. That is the basic assumption of the IPCC.

…

The observed data is not just another throw of the dice. According to the IPCC, the observed data is the value that the models are supposed to predict/project/forecast, and that their mean is supposed to “approach”. Therefore, the proper measure of the fit between models and data is the standard error of the mean.

The fact that all of the GCMs except a couple mutants show increasing temperature trends aloft is not a coincidence. Nor is it a result of model tuning, or of real world observations. It is the result of the theory that GHGs are raising the temperature of the planet.

And, frankly, a successful defense of them seems very unlikely since I believe that they are both incorrect…and we are not talking about hyperbole here. We are talking about flat-out wrong.