[smacintush]

I'd be interested to know exactly how many of the "consensus" are not climate scientists specifically.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I guess you must be talking about some "consensus" other than the one usually brought up here, which is a consensus of climate scientists, in which by definition they are all climate scientists specifically. There is not some master list that defines "the consensus," it's just a reference to the entire group of climate scientists and the high percentage of them who are in agreement.

[peeb]

Is he talking about the IPCC?
Actually, there are cracks in the 'consensus' on plate tectonics, too - I think we should seriously consider the raging scientific controversy about whether the Earth is expanding. Welcome to www.expanding-earth.org!
Expanding Earth Knowledge Company

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I understand your problem with the basic statement because of course saying "physicist" is not enough, but what happens in this is a pissing match of credentials. Credentials we'll either down-play or overlook altogether when their conclusions counter our biased presuppositions. ... Most of the scientists used in the IPCC are simply labeled "experts", but what are their specific credentials? It is not their degree that is most important, but their work in the field.

Have you googled John Brosnahan's work in the field? I tried. I found fourteen publications, from 1985-1995. None of his publications are on the climate, they seem to be on things like radar reflectivity of the atmosphere (??). His affiliations, by the way, were Utah State University and Tycho Technology Inc (Boulder, CO). As far as I can tell, he is no longer an active scientist, and hasn't been for at least ten years. But I don't know; I couldn't find a homepage to check his current status.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course the debate and rhetoric will live on. It lives first among scientists and we'd want it no other way. One main problem I have is the fact that we're still framing this as "warming deniers" against "scientific consensus". I find only a select few on this board denying warming... and cooling. This is no more useful than suggesting those who oppose people arguing against AGW hype are "natural climate change deniers" or "global cooling deniers" then producing consensus arguments debunking those who refute that climate change is natural.

From the article;
Physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: "Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling -- all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by cyclical variations in solar output." Brosnahan says he has "not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case." Those models, he says, leave out too many variables.

Variables like... clouds among other things. Problem is, Since NASA does not fully publish the computer source code and formula used to calculate their graphed trends, nor the corrections used to arrive at the "corrected" data from known inadequate sensor sites, you'll have to invoke FOI to get your hands on any statistical analysis. Why the concern? Controls. Controls like determining a model's accuracy for future predictions by accurately predicting the past. The accuracy of the models in the first place;

A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere. This research, published online in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology, raises new concerns about the reliability of models used to forecast global warming. “The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth’s climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic,” said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. “Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? “It seems that the answer is no.”

The questions are very real. Does this mean "global warming debunked!!!" or even "man-made global warming debunked!!!"??? Absolutely not, but again the questions are extremely valid and very real. This is what science is working on. To say that "The science is for all intents and purposes settled" is to parrot the talking point of one whom you admit has problems with credibility. The millions in research grants to study temperature anomalies and the numerous articles continuously reminding us of "new evidence of AGW" are not consistent with this being an "open and shut case".

Worse, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that any change in man's fossil fuel use will have any appreciable affect on global climate at all. On to page 40...

What a clever response. I'm not sure which way to take that.

I have no problem with Mr. Gore saying the science is settled, but that is not the issue he raises and which most, myself included, have a contention with - the overblown effects he proselytizes.

Following peeb example, Plate Tectonics is for the most part a done deal. There isn't a whole lot that it doesn't account for as far as the earth's continents' positions go. Having said that, walk into a room full of geologists and say that and you'll get lots of disagreements, but not on the first-order issues (well, there are some really old geologists around still). They focus on the second- and third-order problems and can tell you about some anomaly that doesn't quite make sense (yet) in the tectonic framework.

That is what you seem to have here with this list of scientists that keep getting presented. They have small quibbles about certain aspects but not many wholeheartedly would disagree with the science behind global warming.
Sure, somebody's tree pollen in this extreme environment doesn't quite jibe with the global data from a bunch of other sources and location. Bingo, they have a problem (and deniers get a +1 on their list). Scientists whose big point is the strawman argumentsimply that cyclicity has happened in the past are on the list as well. Hell, if you are a scientist and ever experienced a cold day and talked about it, your name is probably going on that list.

The physics behind global warming is settled. Greenhouse gases (with their respective percentages, residence times, and heat capacities) are known. This has been known for many years. Their concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere and oceans with a very likely cause. There is no big suprise (or there shouldn't be) that the earth's atmosphere is getting warmer. Whether that warming brings about 65 meters or a meter sea-level rise in the next 100 years is an entirely different debate.

I haven't looked but I would wager that getting hold of the source code or the data would be a lot easier than trying to get the same access to the source code for voting machines, something few people have chosen to look into, whose veracity people seem to accept on pure faith.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Have you googled John Brosnahan's work in the field? I tried. I found fourteen publications, from 1985-1995. None of his publications are on the climate, they seem to be on things like radar reflectivity of the atmosphere (??). His affiliations, by the way, were Utah State University and Tycho Technology Inc (Boulder, CO). As far as I can tell, he is no longer an active scientist, and hasn't been for at least ten years. But I don't know; I couldn't find a homepage to check his current status.

Have you googled the GISS GCM Model-E? The first paper I can find published using this most recent model was essentially a year ago. GISS GCM-model II was used for prior data. It was built in the 80's. When you question this man's credentials for "physicist with publications on things like radar reflectivity of the atmosphere" and developed remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, then challenge the fact that his latest work was 1995; I have to wonder. The quoted comments were primarily concerned with the models, not the climate. To emphasize the point, I followed up with a 2007 study by the Royal Meteorological Society on problems with the models.

Sometimes I get the impression that we're breezing right past how climate data is collected and processed. It seems I'm being told that's irrelevant and I disagree.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

What a clever response. I'm not sure which way to take that.

The "page 40" comment? That was only to joke about the irreconcilable nature of this issue. No offense intended.

Following peeb example, Plate Tectonics is for the most part a done deal. There isn't a whole lot that it doesn't account for as far as the earth's continents' positions go. Having said that, walk into a room full of geologists and say that and you'll get lots of disagreements, but not on the first-order issues (well, there are some really old geologists around still). They focus on the second- and third-order problems and can tell you about some anomaly that doesn't quite make sense (yet) in the tectonic framework.

We've already discussed the first order questions. I disagreed.

That is what you seem to have here with this list of scientists that keep getting presented. They have small quibbles about certain aspects but not many wholeheartedly would disagree with the science behind global warming.
Sure, somebody's tree pollen in this extreme environment doesn't quite jibe with the global data from a bunch of other sources and location. Bingo, they have a problem (and deniers get a +1 on their list). Scientists whose big point is the strawman argumentsimply that cyclicity has happened in the past are on the list as well. Hell, if you are a scientist and ever experienced a cold day and talked about it, your name is probably going on that list.

I don't know what to say. "Strawmen arguments simply that cyclicity has happened in the past?"
How far in the past?

The physics behind global warming is settled. Greenhouse gases (with their respective percentages, residence times, and heat capacities) are known. This has been known for many years. Their concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere and oceans with a very likely cause. There is no big suprise (or there shouldn't be) that the earth's atmosphere is getting warmer. Whether that warming brings about 65 meters or a meter sea-level rise in the next 100 years is an entirely different debate.

You know for certain this is causal and not correlative?

I haven't looked but I would wager that getting hold of the source code or the data would be a lot easier than trying to get the same access to the source code for voting machines, something few people have chosen to look into, whose veracity people seem to accept on pure faith.

Source code for voting machines
You might know, there are reported problems with them. I wouldn't say "few people have chosen to look into them" assuming it's as big a problem as you seem to imply. That said, I personally don't accept their veracity on faith. I thank God our ballots are still pencil. Taking their veracity on faith of course.

[tie]

Why is it, ebuddy, that all your sources turn out to lack credibility? Or are you again going to say essentially that even though you can't defend his record you nonetheless believe his argument because he's saying what you want to hear? Just a post or two ago, you wrote, "It is not their degree that is most important, but their work in the field." Have you already abandoned this position? Or do you have some links to share?

[Apemanblues]

Online 'debate' of this kind just seems to be a game of who can quote-mine the most 'sciency sounding' articles. Usually it involves boring your opponent into submission with inordinately long "I'm an amateur climatologist now" posts.

The only thing I trust in these matters is the scientific peer review process. Everything else is just hogwash.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Why is it, ebuddy, that all your sources turn out to lack credibility? Or are you again going to say essentially that even though you can't defend his record you nonetheless believe his argument because he's saying what you want to hear? Just a post or two ago, you wrote, "It is not their degree that is most important, but their work in the field." Have you already abandoned this position? Or do you have some links to share?

Of course I haven't abandoned that position. Have you accepted it now? Read my post again. His work in the field of instrumentation is directly relevent to climate data collection and processing. You know this right? From your having scoffed at the focus of his papers it is not clear that you do. The main crux of my argument in that quoted post (and his) is the climate models. If I make a point using two sources including a 2007 study, it is intellectually dishonest for you to cherry-pick the one source that you find questionable and completely ignore all other points.

Please provide a list of climate scientists who participated in the IPCC. Thanks.

You act as if climate scientists wet their thumbs and stick them in the air.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes. In fact I would go so far as to say that what qualifies an expert to be an expert is not the label on their degree, but just the body of work they've published on that topic. Unrelated disqualifications aside of course.



And here's the source of your misconception. Scale is everything. If you understand the basics of arithmetic, scaling it up to calculus doesn't do you a whole lot of good. It's the same in science, and this is what I was trying to say. It's technically accurate to say that all sciences are just a specialization of physics. Chemistry is just physics ignoring things that aren't molecules. Biology is just chemistry ignoring things that aren't alive. Psychology is just biology ignoring things that aren't thinking. Economics is just psychology ignoring things that don't have money. The problem is that while it is correct, and you could theoretically model any sized system at the atomic level, that won't do you any good unless you spend decades studying that particular "specialization of physics." Because there's just too much to know, you can't understand it just by looking at the atomic level.

A climatologist (or a biologist or a chemist or a physician) is not "nothing more" than a physicist. The intricacies of a specific system come with more specific information to understand them, not less.

Ahh but the causes behind the earth's warming particularly when it comes to GHGs don't reach that scale, nor are physicists interested in reaching that scale. The physicists are attempting to explain whats happening right now regardless of past trends. Its a simple matter of why the earth is retaining more heat. There aren't trends to predict, there is no massive atmosphere wide scale to consider....to support/refute the current theory all one needs is to figure out why the earth is trapping more energy then before...something a physicist is more then qualified to research and attempt to theorize.

I would even go as far as to say a run of the mill climatologist with no special education in global warming is ill-equipped to comment on why the earth is warming. A run of the mill climatologist's main objective is to predict future climates based on explaining past ones...if GHG's are altering the earth's natural climate cycles then those past trends are moot, and research/education specifically into the field of climate change due to GHGs is neccesary....a field a physicist is more then qualified to enter (as well as your ordinary climatologist).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Ahh but the causes behind the earth's warming particularly when it comes to GHGs don't reach that scale, nor are physicists interested in reaching that scale. The physicists are attempting to explain whats happening right now regardless of past trends. Its a simple matter of why the earth is retaining more heat. There aren't trends to predict, there is no massive atmosphere wide scale to consider....

That's so untrue I can't begin to imagine where you got that idea.

...something a physicist is more then qualified to research and attempt to theorize.

I would even go as far as to say a run of the mill climatologist with no special education in global warming is ill-equipped to comment on why the earth is warming.

Now you're catching on. Do you realize this is the inverse of what you said in the last two posts? In case you don't, here's another illustration:

....a field a physicist is more then qualified to enter (as well as your ordinary climatologist).

Yes. "To enter." Being qualified to potentially enter a field is a far cry from being an authority in that field. Ridiculously far. Laughably far. I'm actually laughing about it right now.


PS, little pet peeve: "Then" means later in time. "Than" means comparing/contrasting.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

His work in the field of instrumentation is directly relevent to climate data collection and processing. You know this right? From your having scoffed at the focus of his papers it is not clear that you do. The main crux of my argument in that quoted post (and his) is the climate models. If I make a point using two sources including a 2007 study, it is intellectually dishonest for you to cherry-pick the one source that you find questionable and completely ignore all other points

No I don't think his work in instrumentation is relevant to climate data processing. I don't even know what his work in instrumentation is; I haven't been able to find a paper by him that is less than ten years old. I'll ask again, do you have any links that I missed? I'm sorry that it is "intellectually dishonest" of me to question the sources of someone whose last source was a guy who claimed cancer wasn't linked with smoking. Personally, I find it more "intellectually dishonest" to quote this kind of source.

[BadKosh]

Dishonest?? You mean like denying that the Computer climate models don't work?

After all, this is one of the main pieces of evidence the GW crowd uses to tell us how much they know, and it's already a 'done deal' and all the doubters are wrong.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's so untrue I can't begin to imagine where you got that idea.

introductory and intermediate weather and climate courses at a top 15 research university.

Now you're catching on. Do you realize this is the inverse of what you said in the last two posts? In case you don't, here's another illustration:

No...its exactly what i've been saying. I never said a physicist is "out of the box" qualified to theorize on global warming. All i've been saying is they are qualified to enter the field, and simply having "physicist" next to their name is NOT a reason to discredit their work. If you (anyone) wish to discredit a person's theory on their credentials, you (anyone) should look into exactly what sort of research they've been doing.

Yes. "To enter." Being qualified to potentially enter a field is a far cry from being an authority in that field. Ridiculously far. Laughably far. I'm actually laughing about it right now.

Absolutely true. See above.

PS, little pet peeve: "Then" means later in time. "Than" means comparing/contrasting.

My sister was the english major in the family.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by tie 

No I don't think his work in instrumentation is relevant to climate data processing. I don't even know what his work in instrumentation is

So let me get this straight. You don't know what his work is but your pretty sure its not relevant?

Do you not see the logical fallacy in this? Or do you just not want to?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So let me get this straight. You don't know what his work is but your pretty sure its not relevant?

Do you not see the logical fallacy in this? Or do you just not want to?

Yes, apparently your sister was the English major; you have reading comprehension troubles. He didn't say anything about being sure it's not relevant; he just noted that he couldn't find any information, and thus couldn't determine whether this person was a valid "authority" or not. His concern over determining this "validity" was stated, given his stated objections to some past authorities presented. That certainly isn't too much to ask. It's not a logical fallacy, either.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Please provide a list of climate scientists who participated in the IPCC. Thank you

Of course.

greg

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

introductory and intermediate weather and climate courses at a top 15 research university.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a link supporting your claim that the science of global climate change is not on a global scale.

simply having "physicist" next to their name is NOT a reason to discredit their work.

No, but simply having "physicist" next to their name is not sufficient to appeal to their opinion either. This is what tie said which you rejected, and this is the opposite of what you said next, which was this: "No, but a physicist is certainly qualified to discuss the physics of the atmosphere." You said that being a physicist "certainly qualifies" them. That's completely different from "not necessarily disqualifies them." Whether or not you said what you meant to say, well I guess that's an argument for you to have with your 5th grade English teacher.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So let me get this straight. You don't know what his work is but your pretty sure its not relevant?

Do you not see the logical fallacy in this? Or do you just not want to?

I guess you haven't been following the conversation. The work that I've been able to find on the web is all over ten years old and does not seem to be relevant. ebuddy seems to think that there is more recent work, but has not given out any links. Since I don't know what this work is, or if it even exists, I don't know if it is relevant or not. ebuddy has a history of quoting unreliable sources, so I'm skeptical, but I am also willing to read any links he provides.

[peeb]

Good grief. Are we still arguing with these flat earthers?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Of course.

Excellent, and thank you sir. Now, let's take another look at tie's post here;

Originally Posted by tie

No I don't think his work in instrumentation is relevant to climate data processing. I don't even know what his work in instrumentation is; I haven't been able to find a paper by him that is less than ten years old. I'll ask again, do you have any links that I missed? I'm sorry that it is "intellectually dishonest" of me to question the sources of someone whose last source was a guy who claimed cancer wasn't linked with smoking. Personally, I find it more "intellectually dishonest" to quote this kind of source.

- you cherry-picked sources to critique.
- you would like to talk about a climate scientist's credibility on pathology. Unless you're willing to admit that Gore's compilation of climate science has absolutely no value because of Gore himself, you really don't have a leg to stand on.
- you bring up the "10 years old" issue.
- you don't know why a person who developed remote sensing instrumentation for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has credibility in climate data collection and processing.

greg was kind enough to link to an IPCC contributions page, I'll be using this to show that the only thing lacking credibility is your argumentation. From the link I was able to find an IPCC Technical Paper- V; Climate Change and Biodiversity. There are many sources used for this paper, but using your tactic tie I was able to quickly cherry-pick a study the Paper used as contributing material such as;

- Schmid, B.,A. Birrer, and C. Lavigne, 1996: Genetic variation in the response of plant populations to elevated CO2 in a nutrient-poor, calcareous grassland. In: Carbon Dioxide, populations, and communities. [Korner, C. and F.A. Bazzas (eds.)]. Academic Press, San Diego, 31-50.

It's 12 years old!!! Worse, I can't find a paper by Birrer since then nor can I find a home page on either?!? In fact, who is C. Lavigne?!? I can't find credentials on this contributor at all! While I was unable to find 15 published papers to equal the source I cited for you, I was able to find a 2002 abstract by C. Lavigne by using the key words "remote-sensing" and "remote sensors"... I know, those irrelevant instrumentation thingies.

In conclusion and for the last time;
- Using your logic, we can cherry-pick and critique sources until we're blue in the face. Fun, but IMO not good enough. Besides, anyone can sit around waiting for people to critique. You're welcome to contribute to the discussion at any time.

- 10 years old does not necessarily matter. Again, the first paper I could find using the most recent GISS model was approximately one year ago. It is founded on technology built in the 80's. Much of the contributing material of the IPCC are studies that in your opinion are woefully outdated.

- Remote-sensing is relevent. To give you an idea, one such 2001 study included in the IPCC Biodiversity Paper from greg's link; Amphibian declines and environmental change: Use of remote-sensing data to identify environmental correlates [Review]. Conservation Biology, 15, 903-913.

Oceanic remote-sensing is essentially the use of satellite data for both physical and biological oceanic qualities. The instrumentation can provide data on anything from radiative transfer to infrared sea surface temperature. It is relevant. Any such person who develops this instrumentation is certainly qualified to speak on climate data collection and processing.

If you're ready to try a new angle, I'll be waiting. Until then, enjoy the hand cymbal-crashing monkeys.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Good grief. Are we still arguing with these flat earthers?

You might recall where you were accused of being a hypocrite because you railed on others for "constantly posting nonsense and then not responding to rebuttals"? Well, I asked you a few questions several days ago in the form of a rebuttal and uh... you posted more nonsense without responding to my rebuttal. Don't remember? Here's a link to it.

rebuttal to peeb

*Hint, run your cursor over the white-space under "thanks". I'm either clairvoyant or you're simply the biggest hypocrite this forum has ever witnessed. Take your pick.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Stop hounding him We probably just haven't waited long enough. I'm sure it's just that coming up with that "flat earthers" line has been keeping him busy this past week, and now that that's out of the way we should see his thoughtful, reasoned rebuttal in no time.

[peeb]

You've had all the 'reasoned rebuttals' that you'll get to the nonsense here. If you're not convinced by the enormous body of scientific work in this area, then there's nothing more to say. There's not going to be any more proof offered that NASA didn't fake the Moon landings, or that Elvis is not alive and well and living in New York. At this point, you're either convinced, or you're not - and if you're not, then fine, but don't try to pretend it's because of a lack of reasoned rebuttals.

[tie]

ebuddy, why can't you ever defend your sources? All this is irrelevant. You yourself said that a scientist's work in the field is what matters, and then you quote sources who don't work in the field.

- you cherry-picked sources to critique.

That's the best way, isn't it? Would you rather I asked you to defend the credibility of every source you've quoted? Sure, do that then, if it makes you feel better.

- you would like to talk about a climate scientist's credibility on pathology. Unless you're willing to admit that Gore's compilation of climate science has absolutely no value because of Gore himself, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

I don't think this guy has any credibility as a scientist. And neither does Gore.

- you don't know why a person who developed remote sensing instrumentation for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has credibility in climate data collection and processing.

Is this even true? I'm skeptical of everything you post now.

- Remote-sensing is relevent. To give you an idea, one such 2001 study included in the IPCC Biodiversity Paper from greg's link; Amphibian declines and environmental change: Use of remote-sensing data to identify environmental correlates [Review]. Conservation Biology, 15, 903-913.

I have not claimed that remote sensing is irrelevant to science. Nor have I claimed that someone who builds remote sensors is automatically an expert on amphibians, which would seem to be your stance on the above paper.

- 10 years old does not necessarily matter. Again, the first paper I could find using the most recent GISS model was approximately one year ago. It is founded on technology built in the 80's. Much of the contributing material of the IPCC are studies that in your opinion are woefully outdated.

My point was that he apparently hasn't worked in the field for at least ten years, which I guess you are conceding. From what I can find on Google, he has never worked in the field. I am not arguing that decade-old papers should not be cited or don't matter. Is this what you thought I meant?

- Schmid, B.,A. Birrer, and C. Lavigne, 1996: Genetic variation in the response of plant populations to elevated CO2 in a nutrient-poor, calcareous grassland. In: Carbon Dioxide, populations, and communities. [Korner, C. and F.A. Bazzas (eds.)]. Academic Press, San Diego, 31-50.

It's 12 years old!!! Worse, I can't find a paper by Birrer since then nor can I find a home page on either?!? In fact, who is C. Lavigne?!? I can't find credentials on this contributor at all! While I was unable to find 15 published papers to equal the source I cited for you, I was able to find a 2002 abstract by C. Lavigne by using the key words "remote-sensing" and "remote sensors"...

I looked at the lists of contributors for two of the reports and could not find any of these authors on them. I suspect that they are not contributors at all. Do you have a link to show otherwise? The reports list the affiliation of every contributor, which helps for google searches. Claire Lavigne was at the Institut für Umweltwissenschaften, Universität Zürich/Irchel, BTW.

I tried googling three random sources on the contributors page, and all the searches were productive. But I don't see how you can expect me to find information on three people who are not contributors, and I don't see why I should, either.

Edit: Okay, I looked up the paper you mentioned, the Climate Change and Biodiversity Report, from 2002. And indeed none of these people were contributors (listed on page 8)! ebuddy, I really don't know what to say now.

[Buckaroo]

Sorry wrong thread. I meant to post in the Blu Ray thread.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Yes, apparently your sister was the English major; you have reading comprehension troubles. He didn't say anything about being sure it's not relevant; he just noted that he couldn't find any information, and thus couldn't determine whether this person was a valid "authority" or not. His concern over determining this "validity" was stated, given his stated objections to some past authorities presented. That certainly isn't too much to ask. It's not a logical fallacy, either.


Of course.

greg

I guess i'm not following....he can't find any information...but can still make an informed decision? He outright said "No I don't think his work in instrumentation is relevant to climate data processing. I don't even know what his work in instrumentation is..."

Perhaps that not what he means to say now....but there is a serious disconnect in your logical processing if you believe that statement to mean anything other than what it says.

You've had all the 'reasoned rebuttals' that you'll get to the nonsense here. If you're not convinced by the enormous body of scientific work in this area, then there's nothing more to say. There's not going to be any more proof offered that NASA didn't fake the Moon landings, or that Elvis is not alive and well and living in New York. At this point, you're either convinced, or you're not - and if you're not, then fine, but don't try to pretend it's because of a lack of reasoned rebuttals.

if you have no more reasonable things to say why continue in the debate?

...flat earthers.....

for someone who claims to be extremely intelligent you have the maturity level of a 9th grader.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a link supporting your claim that the science of global climate change is not on a global scale.

Why would whether or not increased GHG molecules = significantly more heat need to be studied on a global scale? Seems to me the logical way to test that would be to take a sample or thoroughly study the process on a smaller scale before attempting to "take on the world"



No, but simply having "physicist" next to their name is not sufficient to appeal to their opinion either. This is what tie said which you rejected, and this is the opposite of what you said next, which was this: "No, but a physicist is certainly qualified to discuss the physics of the atmosphere." You said that being a physicist "certainly qualifies" them. That's completely different from "not necessarily disqualifies them." Whether or not you said what you meant to say, well I guess that's an argument for you to have with your 5th grade English teacher.[/QUOTE]

It certainly qualifies them to enter the field. Excuse me for not making that clearer.


And there's no need for insult...your 5th grade english teacher should have taught you that.

[ebuddy]

This thread won't let me post a reply. TEST

[ebuddy]

There must be something distasteful in my response to tie. If I include his text, I can't submit.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There must be something distasteful in my response to tie. If I include his text, I can't submit.

Try a couple more times.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Why would whether or not increased GHG molecules = significantly more heat need to be studied on a global scale? Seems to me the logical way to test that would be to take a sample or thoroughly study the process on a smaller scale before attempting to "take on the world"

I said give a link. I said this because your explanations are often completely illogical, and this is the worst one yet. Global systems are not just scaled-up versions of what's happening in your front yard.

First you say that it's not necessary to do a globe-wide experiment, then you turn around and say you'd do one right after the smaller scale one. Those two statements are contradictory (and the first one is also inaccurate).

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

First you say that it's not necessary to do a globe-wide experiment, then you turn around and say you'd do one right after the smaller scale one. Those two statements are contradictory (and the first one is also inaccurate).

And to add to that, smaller-scale climate experiments are and have been conducted throughout history. Humans have well-established effects on local climate; just look at the "urban heat effect" debate. Humans also have had well-established effects on regional climates; just look at the effects seen from deforesting much of the Middle East (eg. much of Iraq used to be a fertile forest plain instead of a desert). The same sorts of things can be seen around most human-populated areas of the world. Human beings have an undeniable effect on their surrounding climate.

Now why you think those effects somehow shouldn't be able to macro-extend to the world itself is beyond me....

greg

[Buckaroo]

First snow for 100 years falls on Baghdad

It's snowing in Iraq for the first time in 100 years.

The Pacific is cooling.

Yet these wackos can't grasp the consept of the climate changes all the time, and that CO2 is a gas that plants thrive on. Plants can't live without it.

If plants could talk, they'd be yelling in joy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I tried googling three random sources on the contributors page, and all the searches were productive. But I don't see how you can expect me to find information on three people who are not contributors, and I don't see why I should, either. Edit: Okay, I looked up the paper you mentioned, the Climate Change and Biodiversity Report, from 2002. And indeed none of these people were contributors (listed on page 8)! ebuddy, I really don't know what to say now.

Goodness gracious. The paper was prepared by authors, lead authors, and contributors. Contributors are often simply chairs such as Osvaldo on page 8. The IPCC technical paper is based on material compiled from studies. Studies that offer additional insight in response to expert review, generally called references? You might know at the end of the report is an Appendix. On page 68 of the pdf, you will in fact find the studies I've cited. egadz.

NONE OF THESE WERE CONTRIBUTORS LISTED ON PAGE 8!
You're right tie, they're not on page 8!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

First snow for 100 years falls on Baghdad

It's snowing in Iraq for the first time in 100 years.

And Record High Temperatures Have Been Set in Canada Recently

It seems you'll forever be unable to grasp the differing concepts of "global temperature" and "regional temperature". Sad, that. But not surprising.

greg

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

First you say that it's not necessary to do a globe-wide experiment, then you turn around and say you'd do one right after the smaller scale one. Those two statements are contradictory (and the first one is also inaccurate).

Its not necessary at this point in time because it wouldn't tell us a damn thing.

Why would climatologists do a global 'expirment' which would introduce hundreds of variables when it would make much more sense to test on a smaller scale?

Thats one of the first things you're supposed to learn about research expirements; control as many variables as you can so that you can test for the specific one you're looking for.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Its not necessary at this point in time because it wouldn't tell us a damn thing.

What time is that? You seem to be under the impression that small scale experiments haven't been done yet. Well you'll be happy to hear that they have, like 100 years ago. It's now time for us to graduate to the larger scale. And by "now" I mean about 20 years ago.

Why would climatologists do a global 'expirment' which would introduce hundreds of variables when it would make much more sense to test on a smaller scale?

Those hundreds of variables are exactly what they're trying to study! That's what makes the difference between looking at just Baghdad or looking at the world as a whole system. It's what makes the difference between looking at one neuron or looking at the whole brain. It's what makes the difference between looking at one transistor or looking at the whole Macintosh. Model systems have their place, but when you want to learn how something works it "makes more sense" to look at that actual thing rather than the model, not vice versa.

[tie]

ebuddy, if someone's paper is cited as a reference, that doesn't make them a contributor to the report. That makes them someone whose paper was cited.

It looks like you have completely given up on defending your own sources. If that is the case, then why do you bother giving sources at all? If your sources are indefensible, then you should just make things up, like Buckaroo does.

My impression is that you are quoting articles from people who are simply making things up and have no expertise. You yourself are unable to show any expertise. So what's the point? I look forward to your next article where you cite Buckaroo as an expert, then get mad at me for "intellectual dishonesty" and "cherry-picking" your sources when I call you on it.

I guess you've proved my point (over and over again) that your lack of judgement on sources for Iraq carries over to all your decisions.

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

Yet these wackos can't grasp the consept [sic] ... that CO2 is a gas that plants thrive on. Plants can't live without it.

Do you have a single quote by anybody that backs this statement up? Really, by anybody-- it doesn't have to be in this thread, or in a major newspaper, or by someone who has graduated middle school. Maybe try to find a fifth grader who hasn't been taught the carbon cycle yet, get a quote for us, and we'll all join in with you and call him or her a wacko. Stupid fifth grader.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

ebuddy, if someone's paper is cited as a reference, that doesn't make them a contributor to the report. That makes them someone whose paper was cited. It looks like you have completely given up on defending your own sources. If that is the case, then why do you bother giving sources at all? If your sources are indefensible, then you should just make things up, like Buckaroo does.

My impression is that you are quoting articles from people who are simply making things up and have no expertise. You yourself are unable to show any expertise. So what's the point? I look forward to your next article where you cite Buckaroo as an expert, then get mad at me for "intellectual dishonesty" and "cherry-picking" your sources when I call you on it.

I guess you've proved my point (over and over again) that your lack of judgement on sources for Iraq carries over to all your decisions.

I called for contributing scientists in context of the fact that we seemed to agree on the importance of "field work". Remember? You really haven't a clue what you're talking about tie.

For example, Osvaldo Canziani (Argentina) listed under (contributors) is a co-chair for Working group II who helped edit and compile the paper. What are they compiling? Studies used as references of "field work" that support the paper. A co-chair may act as a contributing scientist offering their own field work or may refer to the field work of others. By using the "find" function in the Biodiversity pdf, you'll find that Canziani did not provide any relevant field work. While he may be a scientist (which I could not verify with any active field work, you're welcome to try) In this capacity, he is only an assisting author/editor. Period. You've now abandoned the importance of "field work" for the title of "co-chair" in spite of the fact that you called for field work in previous posts.

Ogunlade Davidson (Sierra Leone) is also listed under (contributors) in the IPCC paper. He is simply a co-chair of working group III and you will find no relevant "field work" by this individual in that paper either. Why? Because he is acting in support of authors/editors by helping compile the studies of those who did conduct field work. Remember the importance of field work tie? In fact, while he may be an active scientist the only credentials I was able to find on this contributor was that he's a professor somewhere and did some papers on sustainable energy. No home page, no recent field work; only a title of professor and co-chair.

Perhaps worst of all, I'm left to assume you saw the word "contributors" in bold print in the paper and assumed with a woefully limited understanding, this somehow satisfied my request for contributing scientists. With your apparent high degree of confidence in your arguments, I was surprised by how careful you were not to mention any names. Given the predictable "duck and weave" nature of your posts, I dug a little deeper.

William Hohenstein (USA) listed under (lead author) is the Director of USDA's Global Change Program Office, within the Office of the Chief Economist. A search of the pdf found no field work by this man. In fact, I can't find any field work by this man at all as is the case with the prior two. You're welcome to try. While he may be a scientist, I've found only speeches and lectures given on energy security and finance. No home page, no field work... Unless of course he's the same William Hohenstein; Associate Professor of Sociology at Haverford college.

So... 15 papers of field work conducted over 10 years ago? Fair enough, but at this point I'd shxx my drawers if I could find even 10 from over 20 years ago through you. Unfortunately, you're not comfortable enough to engage. Once again, you make anyone with any genuine, educated concern on global climate seem absolutely ridiculous. If I were greg, I'd be holding you accountable for it.

In spite of the fact that you've not only lost this argument on my terms, you've lost it on your terms and while I've landed one squarely on your chin, you'll likely prove to this forum that you couldn't feel it through the slobber. Again.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Do you have a single quote by anybody that backs this statement up? Really, by anybody-- it doesn't have to be in this thread, or in a major newspaper, or by someone who has graduated middle school. Maybe try to find a fifth grader who hasn't been taught the carbon cycle yet, get a quote for us, and we'll all join in with you and call him or her a wacko. Stupid fifth grader.

You didn't just call Buckaroo a stupid fifth grader did you? You're either way over the line or you can't find the comma on your keyboard. Which is it?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Uh... no. He meant the Senate report highlighting several hundred scientists with very specific credentials related to climate science. You can post and run however you like and many do. The difference between good arguments and bad ones are those formed from the data in the posts as they are then educated opinions. Of course, the type of opinion that could only come from actually reading the link you're critiquing.

In this case it is patently clear you have decided to take the low road of intellectual dishonesty, instead of the high road of enlightened argumentation. Another exploited freedom around here.

No, I still think he meant Inhofe's Senate report claiming that 400 prominent scientists concluded that global warming was bunk, but the only thing that's bunk is Inhofe's claims. It seems that his "prominent scientists" aren't so prominent after all. Just my Buckaroo for today. Inhofes 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked - 400 Scientists Doubt Climate Change - thedailygreen.com

[BadKosh]

Isn't it funny that Weather, the short term variations of which is confused with Climate, the long duration version of weather is being used to prove Global warming. Perhaps in 3000 years we'll have enough data. A few hundred years of variable quality data isn't proof. Hell, 15,000 years is barely enough.

I'm really tired of all the BS, and snotty '"you just don't understand 'science' " attitudes while those same sources rave on with their techno-babble and made up nonsense.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

...so now you're claiming that science is "techno-babble" and "made-up nonsense"? Nice.

More secret information from your anonymous reviewing scientist friends I assume?

greg

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

No, I still think he meant Inhofe's Senate report claiming that 400 prominent scientists concluded that global warming was bunk, but the only thing that's bunk is Inhofe's claims. It seems that his "prominent scientists" aren't so prominent after all. Just my Buckaroo for today. Inhofes 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked - 400 Scientists Doubt Climate Change - thedailygreen.com

I'd say this is a valid contribution to the discussion OldManMac and let's take a look at their debunking of the debunking;

From your article;

- Inhofe's list includes 413 people. (Score one Inhofe; the math holds up.)
So... okay, the math is correct.

- 84 have either taken money from, or are connected to, fossil fuel industries, or think tanks started by those industries.
Your article claims Mark V. Johnson of propeller.com was the "Hercules" to uncover the dishonesty in the Senate Report. Of course, Propeller.com is part of the AOL Network owned and operated by AOL LLC, a Time-Warner company. Among them is Warner Bros. who participated with NativeEnergy and Warner Independent Pictures on "An Inconvenient Truth". Not unlike the wealth of free airtime Gore received on NBC, a GE affiliate who's contributed more lobbying dollars in Washington for their interests including the sale of carbon offsets and nuclear power aid than all of the oil conglomerates combined. They too have of course "taken money from, or are connected to the industries" with a host of interests all their own.

- 49 are retired

- 44 are television weathermen

- 20 are economists

- 70 have no apparent expertise in climate science

- Several supposed skeptics have publicly stated that they are very concerned about global warming, and support efforts to address it. One claims he was duped into signing the list and regrets it.
Of course you understand where you can be skeptical of aspects of this issue while remaining concerned about global warming and support efforts to address it.

Now, about the article itself;

What about the other 146? Am I to assume they are credible, skeptical scientists unconnected to the oil industry? Certainly the "Herculean research" would've been more complete than this.

Secondly, after the "Herculean task of research" they found only one out of 413 who claimed regret for signing? Not to mention the fact that the remainder of their critiques are aspects of this issue not exclusive to those challenging AGW hype as I've indicated before.

I appreciate the article and the criteria used here, but it must apply to both sides who can easily be exposed for "connections" and interests having nothing to do with global climate.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You didn't just call Buckaroo a stupid fifth grader did you? You're either way over the line or you can't find the comma on your keyboard. Which is it?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In context the statement makes absolutely no sense. I guess I'm glad you got it?

*As an aside; that editing mess has got to be the single ugliest thing I've ever seen around here.

[Uncle Skeleton]

I thought it needed a personal touch. You should have seen the version where I drew the letters by hand...

[tie]

ebuddy, maybe read my posts next time? Buckaroo figured it out and is probably out there right now looking for fifth graders who haven't learned the carbon cycle yet.

Sorry I don't have much time to look into those authors you mentioned. But quick google searches find academic papers by all three, contrary to what you claimed above.
Osvaldo Canziani (Argentina)
Ogunlade Davidson (Sierra Leone)
William Hohenstein (USA)

Originally Posted by ebuddy

at this point I'd shxx my drawers if I could find even 10 from over 20 years ago through you

Maybe clean up your language, stop accusing other people of being "intellectually dishonest" and "ducking and weaving." Then try using Google Scholar next time you are looking for academic articles. And before quoting some random guy you see quoted on some random website, maybe run a google search on them, too.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I thought it needed a personal touch. You should have seen the version where I drew the letters by hand...

It was poorly stated, whatever it was supposed to mean. Convoluted constructions can be intentional too ya know...