The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (1 Viewer)

Scoresman said:

DrJ said:

DrJ said:

DrJ said:

DrJ said:

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

timschochet said:

Chaos Commish said:

.
And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Click to expand...

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

Click to expand...

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

Click to expand...

First off, I defined what I thought a reputable scientist was, in exact terms. If you have any issue with my definition, please state it- you can find it on the page before this one.

As to your points:

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

2. No. In terms of human life on this planet (which should be our main concern) climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels is almost wholly negative, according to the scientists.

3. No, they're not full of crap. We've been over the pause and the possible reasons for it, but none of these reasons are remotely connected to the idea that the scientists are wrong about global warming as a whole.

4. That's why we have peer review. It's kind of bizarre to be suspicious about these scientists, when the vast majority of those "scientists" who deny global warming are in the pay of the oil and coal companies and do not expose their findings to peer review.

5. You may be right. But it's not pertinent to the question of whether or not man-made global warming is happening.

Click to expand...

http://sppiblog.org/tag/judith-curry

Click to expand...

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/05/31/john-christy-climate-change-overview-in-six-slides/

Click to expand...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10886282

Click to expand...

http://www.cfact.org/2013/06/18/a-gentlemanly-discussion-of-climate-change-s-fred-singer-v-john-nielsen-gammon/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Stinger Ray said:

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

timschochet said:

Chaos Commish said:

joffer said:

spreagle said:

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Click to expand...

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

Click to expand...

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

Click to expand...

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

Click to expand...

So every scientist that has studied this thinks the strong majority of climate change is man made?

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

Scoresman said:

DrJ said:

DrJ said:

DrJ said:

DrJ said:

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

Click to expand...

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

Click to expand...

First off, I defined what I thought a reputable scientist was, in exact terms. If you have any issue with my definition, please state it- you can find it on the page before this one.

As to your points:

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

2. No. In terms of human life on this planet (which should be our main concern) climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels is almost wholly negative, according to the scientists.

3. No, they're not full of crap. We've been over the pause and the possible reasons for it, but none of these reasons are remotely connected to the idea that the scientists are wrong about global warming as a whole.

4. That's why we have peer review. It's kind of bizarre to be suspicious about these scientists, when the vast majority of those "scientists" who deny global warming are in the pay of the oil and coal companies and do not expose their findings to peer review.

5. You may be right. But it's not pertinent to the question of whether or not man-made global warming is happening.

Click to expand...

http://sppiblog.org/tag/judith-curry

Click to expand...

http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/05/31/john-christy-climate-change-overview-in-six-slides/

Click to expand...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10886282

Click to expand...

http://www.cfact.org/2013/06/18/a-gentlemanly-discussion-of-climate-change-s-fred-singer-v-john-nielsen-gammon/

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

timschochet said:

Same thing for the other groups you mentioned Dr. J. If the oil and coal companies are funneling you money through back channels, then the information is open to much skepticism.

Also- Dr. Donald Prothero of MIT mentions each one of the groups you linked in his book Reality Check and charges them with not submitting their findings to peer review.

Click to expand...

Groups? These are scientists in the field you've selected.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC

Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland

Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia

The people you're taking your word from wouldn't even have jobs if there weren't a political movement supporting it.

Click to expand...

Dr Oadi said:

DrJ said:

timschochet said:

Same thing for the other groups you mentioned Dr. J. If the oil and coal companies are funneling you money through back channels, then the information is open to much skepticism.

Also- Dr. Donald Prothero of MIT mentions each one of the groups you linked in his book Reality Check and charges them with not submitting their findings to peer review.

Click to expand...

Groups? These are scientists in the field you've selected.

John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC

Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland

Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia

The people you're taking your word from wouldn't even have jobs if there weren't a political movement supporting it.

Click to expand...

Peer review. Peer review Peer review!

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

I can produce "scientists" from the Discovery Institute who dispute evolution and promote intelligent design (as well as denying global warming). But nobody respectable takes them seriously. Same for these guys.

Click to expand...

For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award."

Click to expand...

After receiving his Ph.D. in 1982, Spencer worked for two years as a research scientist in the Space Science and Engineering Center at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.[1] He then joined NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as a visiting scientist in 1984,[2] where he later became a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies.[1] After leaving NASA in 2001, Spencer has been a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UHA).[1] As well as his position at UHA, Spencer is currently the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite, a position he has held since 1994.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

timschochet said:

Chaos Commish said:

joffer said:

spreagle said:

The liberals used a period of warming that ended 17 years ago and attributed it all to CO2 to gin up global warming fear, when a large portion of that warming was due to other natural factors. Everyone agrees the fear was overblown and we were lied to by the likes of Gore, etc. Now we are 17 years into a period of cooling that 1) stopped the inertia of the warming, which is in itself quite impressive and 2) is not yet over, which means we could be cooling for quite some time, perhaps decades. Bottom line CO2 is one half or much less of the threat we were led to believe, I believe it is at he insignificant noise level of threat because of the earths natural emergent thermostats (equatorial clouds, etc). Computer models don't model natural thermostats, they model forcings.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

And? He's basically agreeing it had been warming and the trend since 97 has been cooling. They're both small insignificant samples. While we're warmer than we have been in decades, we are trending to lower recently. Including the spikes in 98 and 12 we're still on a cooling trend.

Major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997

It's a low brow question but since CO2 emissions have done nothing but increase since 97 how come warming has paused?

Click to expand...

Yes it is a low brow question, and I've also already posted the two major theories that answer it. But here's what's important: there are NO scientists on the IPCC, and no reputable scientists anywhere that I have been able to find, that now believe that this pause means that global warming is not happening (and not about to resume in more noticeable ways.) Furthermore, I can't find any reputable scientists who have looked at this pause and said, "Gee, that means the sample size is too small, or that means global warming isn't severe, or that means global warming isn't man-made." These arguments are being made only by people who already doubted man-made global warming for non-scientific reasons.

But I'm willing to change my mind. Find me a reputable scientist who believed in man-made global warming, but now has changed his mind as a result of this pause. Not a layman, not a scientist in a field that has nothing to do with climate testing. Somebody who specializes in this subject, and now doubts global warming BECAUSE of the pause. If you guys can link me to that person, I'll read what they have to say and who knows? Maybe I'll be with you.

Click to expand...

I think part of your problem is that you define "reputable" as "agrees with me". You also appear to define "negative consequences" as "different from the status quo".

I'm in Camp 3 from the earlier list, but I can recognize that:

1) The science on exactly what portion of the warming is man-made is far from settled.

2) Climate change will likely have a number of consequences, some positive, some negative, and mostly both positive and negative depending on who you are.

3) There are issues with the "consensus research" that can't explain everything that's happened over the past N years. There are lots of theories, but no definitive proof. This doesn't mean that humans aren't causing some portion of the warming, but scientists who claim it is clearly N% and have models to prove it are full of crap.

4) There is something wrong with the way we award and reward science grants, that creates perverse incentives with regard to what is discovered. This is not to say that all, or even most, scientists are lying, but there is always a possibility that some are falsifying data, steering research in wrong directions, etc.

5) Perhaps most importantly, there are no policy changes the US can do alone that will make a difference.

Click to expand...

First off, I defined what I thought a reputable scientist was, in exact terms. If you have any issue with my definition, please state it- you can find it on the page before this one.

As to your points:

1. That's true, but it's not unsettled in terms of 0% vs. 51%. It's more like 70% vs. 80%. No reputable scientist (again, please see my definition) doubts that a strong majority of this is man-made.

2. No. In terms of human life on this planet (which should be our main concern) climate change caused by the use of fossil fuels is almost wholly negative, according to the scientists.

3. No, they're not full of crap. We've been over the pause and the possible reasons for it, but none of these reasons are remotely connected to the idea that the scientists are wrong about global warming as a whole.

4. That's why we have peer review. It's kind of bizarre to be suspicious about these scientists, when the vast majority of those "scientists" who deny global warming are in the pay of the oil and coal companies and do not expose their findings to peer review.

5. You may be right. But it's not pertinent to the question of whether or not man-made global warming is happening.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

timschochet said:

I can produce "scientists" from the Discovery Institute who dispute evolution and promote intelligent design (as well as denying global warming). But nobody respectable takes them seriously. Same for these guys.

Click to expand...

Yeah, nobody takes these guys seriously. On Christy:

For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

shader said:

DrJ said:

timschochet said:

I can produce "scientists" from the Discovery Institute who dispute evolution and promote intelligent design (as well as denying global warming). But nobody respectable takes them seriously. Same for these guys.

Click to expand...

Yeah, nobody takes these guys seriously. On Christy:

For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's "Special Award."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Tim you should just stop right now. You are making yourself look foolish. Both sides are guilty of this...but it's laughable when you label global warming deniers as "conservative groups". It's just as non-helpful as labeling global-warming advocates liberals.

The issue has nothing to do with what political party one belongs to. The issue is the science at hand.

The scientists that support global warming frequently make alarming predictions that rarely ever come true. These predictions do and should bring much scrutiny over the science that they engage in.

I mentioned earlier that I believe in some level of man-made climate change. To what level, I'm uncertain. I'm fully open to it being 100% manmade and to it being 0%. But your arguments in this thread are really awful. You are so over-the-top in your criticism of anyone that doesn't support global warming is tough to read. You are basically insinuating that every scientist that is against global warming is in bed financially with conservatives and oil companies, and therefore are being fully dishonest in their opinions. Basically calling the entire "other side" a group of frauds. That's a strong position to take, and one that is making you look foolish.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

First off, I never said the pause wasn't a serious scientific problem. What I wrote was that no reputable scientist who argued for man-made global warming was changing his or her mind because of the pause. There is a vast difference between stating "this is a problem" and stating "this makes our entire hypothesis open to question." If you can find them saying the latter, then I'll take it seriously.

Second, yes I am aware that some of the scientists who doubt global warming are highly respected. But Dr. J is being awfully selective in mentioning them, because not only are they extremely few and far between, but they also don't meet the criteria I stated earlier, which I think is reasonable and which I hold to. If they are receiving money, directly or indirectly, from oil and coal companies, then IMO that taints anything they have to say on the matter. But beyond that, from what I understand much of their doubt is based on speculation and not on hypothesis and testing subject to peer review.

So you guys can continue to laugh at me, but I'll stick to what I know to be true: the science. The earth is warming. Man's use of fossil fuels is the reason. The outlook isn't good. I will continue to hope that I'm wrong about this.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

timschochet said:

First off, I never said the pause wasn't a serious scientific problem. What I wrote was that no reputable scientist who argued for man-made global warming was changing his or her mind because of the pause. There is a vast difference between stating "this is a problem" and stating "this makes our entire hypothesis open to question." If you can find them saying the latter, then I'll take it seriously.

Second, yes I am aware that some of the scientists who doubt global warming are highly respected. But Dr. J is being awfully selective in mentioning them, because not only are they extremely few and far between, but they also don't meet the criteria I stated earlier, which I think is reasonable and which I hold to. If they are receiving money, directly or indirectly, from oil and coal companies, then IMO that taints anything they have to say on the matter. But beyond that, from what I understand much of their doubt is based on speculation and not on hypothesis and testing subject to peer review.

So you guys can continue to laugh at me, but I'll stick to what I know to be true: the science. The earth is warming. Man's use of fossil fuels is the reason. The outlook isn't good. I will continue to hope that I'm wrong about this.

Click to expand...

You asked for examples, suggesting there weren't any reputable scientists that feel differently. I gave some.

I'm skeptical of people that are receiving billions of dollars to research a specific hypothesis and whose money will dry up if said hypothesis doesn't prove to be accurate.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

I posted this in the autism thread:

There are very good comparisons to be made between the anti-vaccine people and the global warming denial crowd. Both groups rely on pseudoscience and bogus studies to make themselves feel better; both groups reject the real science.

Here are some others:

HIV causes Aids denial

Evolution denial (and Intelligent Design)

Population explosion denial

Holocaust denial

Tobacco causes cancer denial

Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK denial

9/11 was performed by al-Qaeda denial

and so forth. Same principles at work every time. What ties all of these together is that people form their opinions first, based on what they want to believe, and then they go looking for facts which back them up. And these facts always have to be cherry-picked, while the real information out there has to be minimized or ignored.

Click to expand...

tommyboy said:

You're an idiot

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

DrJ said:

timschochet said:

First off, I never said the pause wasn't a serious scientific problem. What I wrote was that no reputable scientist who argued for man-made global warming was changing his or her mind because of the pause. There is a vast difference between stating "this is a problem" and stating "this makes our entire hypothesis open to question." If you can find them saying the latter, then I'll take it seriously.

Second, yes I am aware that some of the scientists who doubt global warming are highly respected. But Dr. J is being awfully selective in mentioning them, because not only are they extremely few and far between, but they also don't meet the criteria I stated earlier, which I think is reasonable and which I hold to. If they are receiving money, directly or indirectly, from oil and coal companies, then IMO that taints anything they have to say on the matter. But beyond that, from what I understand much of their doubt is based on speculation and not on hypothesis and testing subject to peer review.

So you guys can continue to laugh at me, but I'll stick to what I know to be true: the science. The earth is warming. Man's use of fossil fuels is the reason. The outlook isn't good. I will continue to hope that I'm wrong about this.

Click to expand...

You asked for examples, suggesting there weren't any reputable scientists that feel differently. I gave some.

I'm skeptical of people that are receiving billions of dollars to research a specific hypothesis and whose money will dry up if said hypothesis doesn't prove to be accurate.

Click to expand...

First off, no you didn't. Second, to be skeptical of 95% of scientists who study this subject around the globe, while ignoring the questionable integrity of those who share your political POV and receive money from oil companies, is really laughable.

Click to expand...

Rich Conway said:

Why do you include "submits their work for peer review" and "doesn't get funding from group X" both as criteria?

If you believe, and you apparently do, that peer review is more or less infallible, then why would the money matter? If the work is available for peer review, then it can easily be shown to be invalid, regardless of who paid for the study.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

Why do you include "submits their work for peer review" and "doesn't get funding from group X" both as criteria?

If you believe, and you apparently do, that peer review is more or less infallible, then why would the money matter? If the work is available for peer review, then it can easily be shown to be invalid, regardless of who paid for the study.

Click to expand...

The two typically go hand in hand. From what I've been able to discover, most of the anti-warming crowd don't submit their stuff to peer review even though they claim they do.

Click to expand...

Rich Conway said:

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

Why do you include "submits their work for peer review" and "doesn't get funding from group X" both as criteria?

If you believe, and you apparently do, that peer review is more or less infallible, then why would the money matter? If the work is available for peer review, then it can easily be shown to be invalid, regardless of who paid for the study.

Click to expand...

The two typically go hand in hand. From what I've been able to discover, most of the anti-warming crowd don't submit their stuff to peer review even though they claim they do.

Click to expand...

So if the work is submitted to peer review, why would funding matter?

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

Why do you include "submits their work for peer review" and "doesn't get funding from group X" both as criteria?

If you believe, and you apparently do, that peer review is more or less infallible, then why would the money matter? If the work is available for peer review, then it can easily be shown to be invalid, regardless of who paid for the study.

Click to expand...

The two typically go hand in hand. From what I've been able to discover, most of the anti-warming crowd don't submit their stuff to peer review even though they claim they do.

Click to expand...

So if the work is submitted to peer review, why would funding matter?

Click to expand...

Because they might claim it was subject to peer review when it really wasn't. That happens all the time when the oil companies are funding them.Look Rich, 90-95% of all the studies say that man-made global warming is happening. None of these are funded by oil companies. Yet 100% of all the studies funded by oil companies say that it is not happening. You're a smart guy; what do these facts tell you?

Click to expand...

shader said:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

Thoughts on this article?

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

shader said:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

Thoughts on this article?

Click to expand...

It's interesting, but this is Tucker Carlsen's website and it's eager to attack global warming whenever it can. I'd like to find out if a more neutral site has a different take on that survey.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

shader said:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

Thoughts on this article?

Click to expand...

It's interesting, but this is Tucker Carlsen's website and it's eager to attack global warming whenever it can. I'd like to find out if a more neutral site has a different take on that survey.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

shader said:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

Thoughts on this article?

Click to expand...

It's interesting, but this is Tucker Carlsen's website and it's eager to attack global warming whenever it can. I'd like to find out if a more neutral site has a different take on that survey.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Per Berkeley Earth, all of the 17 hottest years ever recorded on a global scale have occurred over the last 24 years. They are, in order of hottest: 2010. 2009. 1998, 2005. 2003. 2002. 2004. 2006. 2007, 2011, 2001, 1997, 2008, 1995, 1999, 1990, and 2000. If that doesn't convince you, I don't know what would.

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

timschochet said:

shader said:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

Thoughts on this article?

Click to expand...

It's interesting, but this is Tucker Carlsen's website and it's eager to attack global warming whenever it can. I'd like to find out if a more neutral site has a different take on that survey.

Click to expand...

How about you give us your take on the survey?

Click to expand...

Arsenal of Doom said:

DrJ said:

timschochet said:

shader said:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/26/poll-nearly-half-of-meteorologists-dont-believe-in-man-made-global-warming/

Thoughts on this article?

Click to expand...

It's interesting, but this is Tucker Carlsen's website and it's eager to attack global warming whenever it can. I'd like to find out if a more neutral site has a different take on that survey.

Click to expand...

How about you give us your take on the survey?

Click to expand...

The article is pretty poor summary of the data. The article states that "52 percent of American Meteorological Society members believe climate change is occurring and mostly human-induced, 48 percent of members do not believe in man-made global warming" That's not really the finding. Here is the exact breakdown from the survey:

Is global warming happening and if so, what is the cause:

Yes, Mostly human: 52%

This is the top number references in the article

Yes, Equally human and natural: 10%

Since they use "mostly human-induced" you could exclude this from the 52% they cite but it shouldn't be included in 48% that they claim don't believe in men-made global warming.

Yes, Mostly Natural: 5%

Yes, Insufficient Evidence: 20%

Yes, don't know cause: 1%

Don't know if global warming is happening: 7%

GW is not happening: 4%

From the same survey data you could accurately say that 62% of AMS members who responded believe that humans are at least contributing to global warming, against only 16% who think it is either happening, but not due to human influence or isn't happening at all.

The survey itself actually has enough problems that I don;t even consider it a valid sample, and the researchers call out the problems in the paper: it's self-selected respondents so it can't claim to be an accurate random representation of all AMS members, let alone all meteorologists as the article headline states. It also points out that several respondents reported that they would have answered differently if they had been asked about a 50 year window rather than 150, and the article does point this out.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

Why do you include "submits their work for peer review" and "doesn't get funding from group X" both as criteria?

If you believe, and you apparently do, that peer review is more or less infallible, then why would the money matter? If the work is available for peer review, then it can easily be shown to be invalid, regardless of who paid for the study.

Click to expand...

The two typically go hand in hand. From what I've been able to discover, most of the anti-warming crowd don't submit their stuff to peer review even though they claim they do.

Click to expand...

So if the work is submitted to peer review, why would funding matter?

Click to expand...

Because they might claim it was subject to peer review when it really wasn't. That happens all the time when the oil companies are funding them.Look Rich, 90-95% of all the studies say that man-made global warming is happening. None of these are funded by oil companies. Yet 100% of all the studies funded by oil companies say that it is not happening. You're a smart guy; what do these facts tell you?

Click to expand...

Rich Conway said:

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

Why do you include "submits their work for peer review" and "doesn't get funding from group X" both as criteria?

If you believe, and you apparently do, that peer review is more or less infallible, then why would the money matter? If the work is available for peer review, then it can easily be shown to be invalid, regardless of who paid for the study.

Click to expand...

The two typically go hand in hand. From what I've been able to discover, most of the anti-warming crowd don't submit their stuff to peer review even though they claim they do.

Click to expand...

So if the work is submitted to peer review, why would funding matter?

Click to expand...

Because they might claim it was subject to peer review when it really wasn't. That happens all the time when the oil companies are funding them.Look Rich, 90-95% of all the studies say that man-made global warming is happening. None of these are funded by oil companies. Yet 100% of all the studies funded by oil companies say that it is not happening. You're a smart guy; what do these facts tell you?

Click to expand...

You're avoiding the question.

If work is submitted for peer review, why does it matter who funds the research?

Oh, and by the way, I believe the earth is warming and that it's most likely that some small portion of that is man made. Not 70% or 80%, but more like 5% or 10%. I'm open to the possibility that it's more, perhaps even much more. What I'm not open to is the idea that the answer is already determined. I'm not open to the idea that anyone who disagrees with your 70% number is ignorant or an idiot.

Click to expand...

MaxThreshold said:

Why is everyone still arguing with Tim? It's clear he's unable to believe anything that doesn't agree with his views. And when it conflicts with his views, he either moves the goalposts to fit those views or insults others others. Really guys, it's time to stop wasting your time and effort and put it to more valuable use.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

timschochet said:

Rich Conway said:

Why do you include "submits their work for peer review" and "doesn't get funding from group X" both as criteria?

If you believe, and you apparently do, that peer review is more or less infallible, then why would the money matter? If the work is available for peer review, then it can easily be shown to be invalid, regardless of who paid for the study.

Click to expand...

The two typically go hand in hand. From what I've been able to discover, most of the anti-warming crowd don't submit their stuff to peer review even though they claim they do.

Click to expand...

So if the work is submitted to peer review, why would funding matter?

Click to expand...

Because they might claim it was subject to peer review when it really wasn't. That happens all the time when the oil companies are funding them.Look Rich, 90-95% of all the studies say that man-made global warming is happening. None of these are funded by oil companies. Yet 100% of all the studies funded by oil companies say that it is not happening. You're a smart guy; what do these facts tell you?

Click to expand...

You're avoiding the question.If work is submitted for peer review, why does it matter who funds the research?

Oh, and by the way, I believe the earth is warming and that it's most likely that some small portion of that is man made. Not 70% or 80%, but more like 5% or 10%. I'm open to the possibility that it's more, perhaps even much more. What I'm not open to is the idea that the answer is already determined. I'm not open to the idea that anyone who disagrees with your 70% number is ignorant or an idiot.

Click to expand...

I never used the word idiot. I don't consider you or anyone else here who disagrees with me to be an idiot. It is tommyboy who refers to me as an idiot and a moron. Whatever.As far as ignorant goes, that's not my argument; that's the argument being made by the scientists who have been attempting to show that the warming is happening. And in fact it's not meant to be insulting; it's suggesting that the American public (and specifically conservatives) are being misled by certain people and are ignorant of all the facts. Personally, I don't consider being ignorant a slur at all- I'm ignorant on a ton of stuff, including this issue.

But your 5 or 10% is not a figure justified by the scientists who I am reading.

ETA- I answered your question already. Sorry if you don't find it to be satisfactory.

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

MaxThreshold said:

Why is everyone still arguing with Tim? It's clear he's unable to believe anything that doesn't agree with his views. And when it conflicts with his views, he either moves the goalposts to fit those views or insults others others. Really guys, it's time to stop wasting your time and effort and put it to more valuable use.

Click to expand...

What an ironic post. In the history of this forum you have never expressed a single position that was not in absolute line with whatever the most conservative view happens to be, and you have never failed to insult whoever disagrees with you (which I have not done in this thread.)

Click to expand...

MaxThreshold said:

timschochet said:

MaxThreshold said:

Why is everyone still arguing with Tim? It's clear he's unable to believe anything that doesn't agree with his views. And when it conflicts with his views, he either moves the goalposts to fit those views or insults others others. Really guys, it's time to stop wasting your time and effort and put it to more valuable use.

Click to expand...

What an ironic post. In the history of this forum you have never expressed a single position that was not in absolute line with whatever the most conservative view happens to be, and you have never failed to insult whoever disagrees with you (which I have not done in this thread.)

Click to expand...

Then i guess you and I are more the same than you'd like to admit. And of course you've insulted others by calling them ignorant and idiots if they don't subscribe to your global warming dogma. You've even called for them to be ridiculed as much as possible.

Click to expand...

jon_mx said:

MaxThreshold said:

timschochet said:

MaxThreshold said:

Why is everyone still arguing with Tim? It's clear he's unable to believe anything that doesn't agree with his views. And when it conflicts with his views, he either moves the goalposts to fit those views or insults others others. Really guys, it's time to stop wasting your time and effort and put it to more valuable use.

Click to expand...

What an ironic post. In the history of this forum you have never expressed a single position that was not in absolute line with whatever the most conservative view happens to be, and you have never failed to insult whoever disagrees with you (which I have not done in this thread.)

Click to expand...

Then i guess you and I are more the same than you'd like to admit. And of course you've insulted others by calling them ignorant and idiots if they don't subscribe to your global warming dogma. You've even called for them to be ridiculed as much as possible.

Click to expand...

Oh come on, Tim did not call them idiots. Tim is much to refined for that. Ignorant stupid fools maybe, but definitely not idiots.

Click to expand...

datonn said:

This thread makes me think about what it must be like to live in a mental institution. You get dozens of people who are off their rocker, all telling each other than they're not cuckoo for cocoa puffs. And it doesn't matter what the 5-6 doctors/psychologists have to say in the matter...because if dozens of "residents" all have the same beliefs, then it is obviously the doctors/psychologists who are the ones who should be institutionalized.

It was -22 F here in Minnesota today, with a wind chill in the -40s F. Vis a vie, climate change (excuse me: global warming) is a crock! My goodness, it actually works! Life is so much simpler, happier that way. La la-la la-la (picture me skipping down the hall, in my pajamas)...

Click to expand...

DrJ said:

datonn said:

This thread makes me think about what it must be like to live in a mental institution. You get dozens of people who are off their rocker, all telling each other than they're not cuckoo for cocoa puffs. And it doesn't matter what the 5-6 doctors/psychologists have to say in the matter...because if dozens of "residents" all have the same beliefs, then it is obviously the doctors/psychologists who are the ones who should be institutionalized.

It was -22 F here in Minnesota today, with a wind chill in the -40s F. Vis a vie, climate change (excuse me: global warming) is a crock! My goodness, it actually works! Life is so much simpler, happier that way. La la-la la-la (picture me skipping down the hall, in my pajamas)...

Edited to add:

Click to expand...

This thread makes me think about how far I could leap if I closed my eyes and thought about it really hard.

Click to expand...

datonn said:

This thread makes me think about what it must be like to live in a mental institution. You get dozens of people who are off their rocker, all telling each other than they're not cuckoo for cocoa puffs. And it doesn't matter what the 5-6 doctors/psychologists have to say in the matter...because if dozens of "residents" all have the same beliefs, then it is obviously the doctors/psychologists who are the ones who should be institutionalized.

It was -22 F here in Minnesota today, with a wind chill in the -40s F. Vis a vie, climate change (excuse me: global warming) is a crock! My goodness, it actually works! Life is so much simpler, happier that way. La la-la la-la (picture me skipping down the hall, in my pajamas)...

Click to expand...

timschochet said:

MaxThreshold said:

Why is everyone still arguing with Tim? It's clear he's unable to believe anything that doesn't agree with his views. And when it conflicts with his views, he either moves the goalposts to fit those views or insults others others. Really guys, it's time to stop wasting your time and effort and put it to more valuable use.

Click to expand...

What an ironic post. In the history of this forum you have never expressed a single position that was not in absolute line with whatever the most conservative view happens to be, and you have never failed to insult whoever disagrees with you (which I have not done in this thread.)

Click to expand...

jonessed said:

timschochet said:

MaxThreshold said:

Why is everyone still arguing with Tim? It's clear he's unable to believe anything that doesn't agree with his views. And when it conflicts with his views, he either moves the goalposts to fit those views or insults others others. Really guys, it's time to stop wasting your time and effort and put it to more valuable use.

Click to expand...

What an ironic post. In the history of this forum you have never expressed a single position that was not in absolute line with whatever the most conservative view happens to be, and you have never failed to insult whoever disagrees with you (which I have not done in this thread.)

Click to expand...

I bet you even believe this.

Click to expand...

StrikeS2k said:

jonessed said:

timschochet said:

MaxThreshold said:

Why is everyone still arguing with Tim? It's clear he's unable to believe anything that doesn't agree with his views. And when it conflicts with his views, he either moves the goalposts to fit those views or insults others others. Really guys, it's time to stop wasting your time and effort and put it to more valuable use.

Click to expand...

What an ironic post. In the history of this forum you have never expressed a single position that was not in absolute line with whatever the most conservative view happens to be, and you have never failed to insult whoever disagrees with you (which I have not done in this thread.)

Click to expand...

I bet you even believe this.

Click to expand...

It's not like I compiled his insults in to one single post just to point it out to him.......oh wait, I did.

Click to expand...