Climate Change - the big debate
Discussion
Chatting to a pal of mine over dinner in a rather 'vibrant' restaurant last night - with all the noise I may have missed some nuance so I'll paraphrase a bit. Senior academic in a Science department.
"We've been told that the University has no idea where and how Govt. funding cuts will be applied. But that we might expect to have zero direct funding as of the next academic year. That means that all finding would have to come from attracting students who pay and possibly from industry."
The problem with the later idea seems to be that ion many industries the companies are packing their bags and heading abroad.
So. thinking about questions from earlier in the week and how science researchers might find budget to undertake research in the UK; how is anyone going to be able to do anything on any scale that might be 'creative' outside the core focus of, mostly, government departments and political policies for the foreseeable future?
Or, to turn that around, will it only be 'on message' climate 'science' departments that continue to be funded and if so will that skew results and spin and would that make any difference if Joe Public has already decided the subject has nothing to do with them except politics and taxation?
"We've been told that the University has no idea where and how Govt. funding cuts will be applied. But that we might expect to have zero direct funding as of the next academic year. That means that all finding would have to come from attracting students who pay and possibly from industry."
The problem with the later idea seems to be that ion many industries the companies are packing their bags and heading abroad.
So. thinking about questions from earlier in the week and how science researchers might find budget to undertake research in the UK; how is anyone going to be able to do anything on any scale that might be 'creative' outside the core focus of, mostly, government departments and political policies for the foreseeable future?
Or, to turn that around, will it only be 'on message' climate 'science' departments that continue to be funded and if so will that skew results and spin and would that make any difference if Joe Public has already decided the subject has nothing to do with them except politics and taxation?
Edited by LongQ on Monday 14th February 09:03
turbobloke said:
It's to do with capturing radiation that was already heading out towards space from ground level, high in the atmosphere where the shoulders on the absorption peaks for carbon dioxide are not saturated. However as at lower levels, increasing carbon dioxide concentration merely decreases the distance over which absorption occurs, and the shorter distance remains different to an automatic bulk temperature increase even 'up there'. Meanwhile there is no visible human influence 'down here' which is a measure of how daft this can get.
I take it that this is the reason for the theoretical "hot-spot" in the upper atmosphere, that unfortunately for our warmest friends is apparently missing from the satellite measurements data-sets?Another quick question- does the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere remain constant with attitude, and are such measurements of concentration made by ballons rising into the stratosphere?
clyffepypard said:
turbobloke said:
It's to do with capturing radiation that was already heading out towards space from ground level, high in the atmosphere where the shoulders on the absorption peaks for carbon dioxide are not saturated. However as at lower levels, increasing carbon dioxide concentration merely decreases the distance over which absorption occurs, and the shorter distance remains different to an automatic bulk temperature increase even 'up there'. Meanwhile there is no visible human influence 'down here' which is a measure of how daft this can get.
I take it that this is the reason for the theoretical "hot-spot" in the upper atmosphere, that unfortunately for our warmest friends is apparently missing from the satellite measurements data-sets?Another quick question- does the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere remain constant with attitude, and are such measurements of concentration made by ballons rising into the stratosphere?
ETA got one, it was Klotzbach et al (2009)
ETA again and I think the other was Christy et al (2010)
Delay due to trying to find web sources as pushing document files down the keyboard doesn't work on PH and there are other sources if you look...
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/f...
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/sep/22sep...
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 13th February 15:32
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 13th February 15:36
turbobloke said:
clyffepypard said:
turbobloke said:
It's to do with capturing radiation that was already heading out towards space from ground level, high in the atmosphere where the shoulders on the absorption peaks for carbon dioxide are not saturated. However as at lower levels, increasing carbon dioxide concentration merely decreases the distance over which absorption occurs, and the shorter distance remains different to an automatic bulk temperature increase even 'up there'. Meanwhile there is no visible human influence 'down here' which is a measure of how daft this can get.
I take it that this is the reason for the theoretical "hot-spot" in the upper atmosphere, that unfortunately for our warmest friends is apparently missing from the satellite measurements data-sets?Another quick question- does the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere remain constant with attitude, and are such measurements of concentration made by ballons rising into the stratosphere?
ETA got one, it was Klotzbach et al (2009)
ETA again and I think the other was Christy et al (2010)
Delay due to trying to find web sources as pushing document files down the keyboard doesn't work on PH and there are other sources if you look...
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/f...
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/sep/22sep...
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 13th February 15:32
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 13th February 15:36
I'd remembered something being mentioned about there being a missing Hot-spot in the satellite data, and had assumed that it was to do with a theoretical prediction coming out of the CO2 greenhouse gas effect.
I now take it to be referring to a discrepancy between the surface and upper troposphere rates of warming, which would point to a UHIE bias in the surface temperature data that has not been compensated for. Have I got that part of it right?
Edited by clyffepypard on Sunday 13th February 16:19
Guam said:
kerplunk said:
Don't worry about it FF, there's nothing wrong with seeking advice elswhere and you've made many good points that clearly haven't originated from BS so you aren't just channeling the arguments of others. Those complaining about it are showing a sudden opportunistic sensibility. PH-ers seeking advice here on debates being held elsewhere is a regular occurence and nobody bats an eye-lid - to see how faux this righteousness is all you have to do is wait a while for the next time.
In my book the only mistake you made was agreeing not to cross-post things from here over there - again this is a completely new standard being applied and your politeness is being used as a stick to beat you with as though you've admitted a wrong.
Integrity advice from the Prince of insults on here, How Ironically appropriate!In my book the only mistake you made was agreeing not to cross-post things from here over there - again this is a completely new standard being applied and your politeness is being used as a stick to beat you with as though you've admitted a wrong.
Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 13th February 14:43
...aye, too right.Let's give FF a degree of credit for coming forward with his apology, though. He could have just melted away and left it.
clyffepypard said:
Seems I was wrong about what I thought the hot-spot was referring to.
I'd remembered something being mentioned abouut there being a missing Hot-spot in the satellite data, and had assumed that it was to do with a theoretical prediction of coming out of the CO2 greenhouse gas effect.
I now take it to be referring to a discrepancy between the surface and upper troposphere rates of warming, which would point to a UHIE bias in the surface temperature data that has not been compensated for. Have I got that part of it right?
Apologies if the near-timing of events relating to two papers - near enough for my memory to lump them together anyway - has complicaterd things.I'd remembered something being mentioned abouut there being a missing Hot-spot in the satellite data, and had assumed that it was to do with a theoretical prediction of coming out of the CO2 greenhouse gas effect.
I now take it to be referring to a discrepancy between the surface and upper troposphere rates of warming, which would point to a UHIE bias in the surface temperature data that has not been compensated for. Have I got that part of it right?
I'm fairly sure you're referring to the tropical troposphere hotspot, and as such only the troposphere hotspot model-data discrepancy paper (Christy et al) is relevant.
The surface-troposphere discrepancy paper (Klotzbach et al) is another matter. That paper was the subject of a later corrigendum but the conclusion was unaltered. That's happened a lot with papers that 'do some damage' to the faith. A point is identified that is rightly worthy of a correction BUT the conclusion remains. Nevertheless warmistry in its quest for headlines and spin can direct on-side media types to the corrigendum which will be published as 'X was wrong' without any indication of the fact that the conclusion remains valid or (sometimes) the new numbers remaining within the error bars of the old.
Here's what I think you're referring to in pics. Top left model, others observational data.
Ali G said:
don4l said:
Ali G said:
(3) Full absorption occurs within 1-10 meters at sea level
Is there evidence that backs this up? If there is, then the whole CO2 thing would be blown sky high.Don
--
http://www.sundogpublishing.com/fig9-13.pdf
Note that graph shows 'frequency' rather than 'wavelength'.
Linky here...
First Course in Atmospheric Radiation
turbobloke said:
Apologies if the near-timing of events relating to two papers - near enough for my memory to lump them together anyway - has complicaterd things.
I'm fairly sure you're referring to the tropical troposphere hotspot, and as such only the troposphere hotspot model-data discrepancy paper (Christy et al) is relevant.
The surface-troposphere discrepancy paper (Klotzbach et al) is another matter. That paper was the subject of a later corrigendum but the conclusion was unaltered. That's happened a lot with papers that 'do some damage' to the faith. A point is identified that is rightly worthy of a correction BUT the conclusion remains. Nevertheless warmistry in its quest for headlines and spin can direct on-side media types to the corrigendum which will be published as 'X was wrong' without any indication of the fact that the conclusion remains valid or (sometimes) the new numbers remaining within the error bars of the old.
Here's what I think you're referring to in pics. Top left model, others observational data.
That'll teach me to follow all the links before jumping to conclusions. I guess I assumed they were both related to the same issue.I'm fairly sure you're referring to the tropical troposphere hotspot, and as such only the troposphere hotspot model-data discrepancy paper (Christy et al) is relevant.
The surface-troposphere discrepancy paper (Klotzbach et al) is another matter. That paper was the subject of a later corrigendum but the conclusion was unaltered. That's happened a lot with papers that 'do some damage' to the faith. A point is identified that is rightly worthy of a correction BUT the conclusion remains. Nevertheless warmistry in its quest for headlines and spin can direct on-side media types to the corrigendum which will be published as 'X was wrong' without any indication of the fact that the conclusion remains valid or (sometimes) the new numbers remaining within the error bars of the old.
Here's what I think you're referring to in pics. Top left model, others observational data.
I've now looked at the second link you posted, and it does indeed jog my memory about where I'd seen the missing hot-spot being referred to (may have been over on watts). If I understand correctly, this hot-spot is predicted by the climate models of the green-house gas effect, but is found to be significantly, if not massively over-estimated when compared to the RSS satellite data, suggesting that the climate models are a long way from "accurately" representing how the earth's atmosphere behaves in this respect. I trust I've finally got the right end of the stick on this one.
This would seem to blow a hole in the warmists reliance on the model forecasts predicting dangerous temperature rises, given that they cannot get even this right. Ever likely they twist and turn in their attempts to keep the scam going, so convinced are they that they are right, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Having read the earlier American Thinker link regarding the subversion of the peer-review process, it made me disgusted at their antics, and while what they did may not be illegal, it damn well should be! How these people still have jobs is beyond me :-(
kerplunk said:
Junk Science is already taken - it's a sceptic site 
Because as the subtitle at www.junkscience.com makes clear it covers agw i.e.all the junk that's fit to debunk
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
Junk Science is already taken - it's a sceptic site
Because as the subtitle at www.junkscience.com makes clear it covers agw i.e.all the junk that's fit to debunk
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Ali G said:
Just to try to reconcile back to HK's point re IR...
We all know that things like (ahem) sidewinder missiles lock on IR sources from quite a long way off (well, lets say more than a meter anyway...).
In general, IR across most frequencies will travel a heck of a long way in the atmosphere (as will wavelengths of visible light). But its not most wavelengths we are discussing - its specifically the 15micron wavelength, since this is the wavelenght absorbed by CO2, and it is this absorption which gives rise to the presumed 'greenhouse effect'.
The 15 micron radiation effectively goes nowhere in the atmosphere because it so effectively absorbed by CO2 !.
If you made a sidewinder IR detector wich only operated in the 15 mciron range, it would be considered a bit of a design flaw...
Sorry if ths is teaching you all to suck eggs!
It absorbs a range of wavelengths as even a cursory glance at the transmission spectra would show. Focussing solely on the central peak absorption instead of the wings is the source of your misunderstanding. We all know that things like (ahem) sidewinder missiles lock on IR sources from quite a long way off (well, lets say more than a meter anyway...).
In general, IR across most frequencies will travel a heck of a long way in the atmosphere (as will wavelengths of visible light). But its not most wavelengths we are discussing - its specifically the 15micron wavelength, since this is the wavelenght absorbed by CO2, and it is this absorption which gives rise to the presumed 'greenhouse effect'.
The 15 micron radiation effectively goes nowhere in the atmosphere because it so effectively absorbed by CO2 !.
If you made a sidewinder IR detector wich only operated in the 15 mciron range, it would be considered a bit of a design flaw...
Sorry if ths is teaching you all to suck eggs!
turbobloke said:
All you have done is throw out an insult as your toys leave the pram. You cannot discuss this in depth from a personal basis, once your cut and paste is over your bolt appears to be shot, as is ymanmadeup warming. Where is the science arguing against the detailed explanation I gave as to how your account is misleading to a very high degree?
You say
"the specific argument being addressed was that posted by Ali yesterday, that all of the IR that can be absorbed by CO2 is already absorbed within a few meters of ground level"
I say
"the removal of line broadening effect is negligible, occurs almost wholly in the stratopshere where the necessary conditions are met, and cannot cause warming of the troposphere because: a shorter absorption distance isn't an automatic bulk temperature increase, there's no convective transfer possible, and the 2nd law as before rules out a cooler higher atmospheric layer heating a lower warmer one by radiative transfer"
Those points have been discussed before and understood by many on here. I showed you how the science actually works outside of advocacy blogs and clearly all you can reply with is "spouting off complex desaturation arguments" well if you can't understand what you're cutting and psting why do you bother? It's not complex to me and I doubt it's complex to others as there are many graduate and post-doc scientists on this thread.
Note the time of editing (original post) before kerplunk goes ballistic on a point of order.
'More complex', not 'complex'. It's an important distinction. If you're going to spout off about me cutting and pasting, effectively accusing me of plagiarism, maybe you can point out where I've cut and pasted from?You say
"the specific argument being addressed was that posted by Ali yesterday, that all of the IR that can be absorbed by CO2 is already absorbed within a few meters of ground level"
I say
"the removal of line broadening effect is negligible, occurs almost wholly in the stratopshere where the necessary conditions are met, and cannot cause warming of the troposphere because: a shorter absorption distance isn't an automatic bulk temperature increase, there's no convective transfer possible, and the 2nd law as before rules out a cooler higher atmospheric layer heating a lower warmer one by radiative transfer"
Those points have been discussed before and understood by many on here. I showed you how the science actually works outside of advocacy blogs and clearly all you can reply with is "spouting off complex desaturation arguments" well if you can't understand what you're cutting and psting why do you bother? It's not complex to me and I doubt it's complex to others as there are many graduate and post-doc scientists on this thread.
Note the time of editing (original post) before kerplunk goes ballistic on a point of order.
hairykrishna said:
It absorbs a range of wavelengths as even a cursory glance at the transmission spectra would show. Focussing solely on the central peak absorption instead of the wings is the source of your misunderstanding.
Hi!Thanks for pointing that out..
Don't think I have misunderstood though. The range of wavelengths over which CO2 absorbs is very limited in comparison with the entire IR spectrum. I'm sure that many CO2 absorption spectra have been posted before - so won't post another one.
The real issue, however, is that those wavelenghts which CO2 does absorb strongly, pretty much fail to make it beyond a few tens of meters of the surface of the planet.
Cheers.
hairykrishna said:
turbobloke said:
All you have done is throw out an insult as your toys leave the pram. You cannot discuss this in depth from a personal basis, once your cut and paste is over your bolt appears to be shot, as is ymanmadeup warming. Where is the science arguing against the detailed explanation I gave as to how your account is misleading to a very high degree?
You say
"the specific argument being addressed was that posted by Ali yesterday, that all of the IR that can be absorbed by CO2 is already absorbed within a few meters of ground level"
I say
"the removal of line broadening effect is negligible, occurs almost wholly in the stratopshere where the necessary conditions are met, and cannot cause warming of the troposphere because: a shorter absorption distance isn't an automatic bulk temperature increase, there's no convective transfer possible, and the 2nd law as before rules out a cooler higher atmospheric layer heating a lower warmer one by radiative transfer"
Those points have been discussed before and understood by many on here. I showed you how the science actually works outside of advocacy blogs and clearly all you can reply with is "spouting off complex desaturation arguments" well if you can't understand what you're cutting and psting why do you bother? It's not complex to me and I doubt it's complex to others as there are many graduate and post-doc scientists on this thread.
Note the time of editing (original post) before kerplunk goes ballistic on a point of order.
'More complex', not 'complex'. It's an important distinction. If you're going to spout off about me cutting and pasting, effectively accusing me of plagiarism, maybe you can point out where I've cut and pasted from?You say
"the specific argument being addressed was that posted by Ali yesterday, that all of the IR that can be absorbed by CO2 is already absorbed within a few meters of ground level"
I say
"the removal of line broadening effect is negligible, occurs almost wholly in the stratopshere where the necessary conditions are met, and cannot cause warming of the troposphere because: a shorter absorption distance isn't an automatic bulk temperature increase, there's no convective transfer possible, and the 2nd law as before rules out a cooler higher atmospheric layer heating a lower warmer one by radiative transfer"
Those points have been discussed before and understood by many on here. I showed you how the science actually works outside of advocacy blogs and clearly all you can reply with is "spouting off complex desaturation arguments" well if you can't understand what you're cutting and psting why do you bother? It's not complex to me and I doubt it's complex to others as there are many graduate and post-doc scientists on this thread.
Note the time of editing (original post) before kerplunk goes ballistic on a point of order.
This is just more personal, diversionary stuff, and boring. Where's that visible human signal in global climate temperature data with established causality to anthropogenic carbon dioxide?
Wherer's the causality to humans in ice mass change or rain or floods or bears or whatever?
Answers to the above are 'non-existent' and 'nowhere'. So there's nothing by way of credible observational data on which to apply sound science - this is why you and other Believers rely on junkscience, as explained in my posts.
Come back when you got a signal and more understanding.
kerplunk said:
Don't worry about it FF, there's nothing wrong with seeking advice elswhere and you've made many good points that clearly haven't originated from BS so you aren't just channeling the arguments of others. Those complaining about it are showing a sudden opportunistic sensibility. PH-ers seeking advice here on debates being held elsewhere is a regular occurence and nobody bats an eye-lid - to see how faux this righteousness is all you have to do is wait a while for the next time.
In my book the only mistake you made was agreeing not to cross-post things from here over there - again this is a completely new standard being applied and your politeness is being used as a stick to beat you with as though you've admitted a wrong.
Oh, dear, oh dear, oh me!In my book the only mistake you made was agreeing not to cross-post things from here over there - again this is a completely new standard being applied and your politeness is being used as a stick to beat you with as though you've admitted a wrong.
Just for the benefit of the hard of thinking, finally, my posts about FF and his disingenuous behaviour (repeated, as valid) is not opportunist and shows no indignation, faux or otherwise (dream on . . .) but is simply a point fit to make.
That he quoted material he hadn't - at that time - read, yet alone understood, to argue against and contradict others' views; others who had researched and did know something of what they wrote. Through asking (secretively until outed) for help from people on a different forum, (and in so doing, what with his posting back and forth set up ridicule and unwarranted criticisms for PH and its regulars from his new pals). I'm not indignant at all, not even over the later point, but do think his pretence rather shabby and that we have a right to say so.
Personally I would not comment on anything here , either way, using links from any source unless I had at least read it first. Just seems like common sense as well as honesty to me.
But be offended if it makes you feel better!
Ali G said:
Just for completeness, the above comes from a text book "First Course in Atmospheric Radiation", just in case there is debate about the source!
Linky here...
First Course in Atmospheric Radiation
This is an excellent book and contains material that relates well to the stuff posted earlier about energy states etc. including the references to that (supposed, by some here) moron, Vonk.Linky here...
First Course in Atmospheric Radiation
See for example this, from p.229:
In Chapter 2, I pointed out that EM radiation has both wavelike and particle-like properties. Recall that there are times when radiation must be viewed as waves, times when it must be viewed as a shower of quantized particles having energy E = hν, and, finally, times when it doesn’t matter which view you take. The absorption of radiation by gases turns out to be one of those cases in which the quantized (particle) nature of radiation comes to the forefront. Simply stated, interactions between radiation and individual gas molecules — whether absorption or emission — are possible only for photons having energies satisfying certain criteria. Those criteria are largely determined by the arcane, and sometimes counterintuitive, laws of quantum mechanics.
Stuff which I recall being mocked repeatedly by one or other (or both?) of GT and Gear when I referred to it some months back. At that point any link to quantum effects was dismissed out of hand by our friend(s).
Edited by Lost_BMW on Sunday 13th February 22:46
Lost_BMW said:
Ali G said:
Just for completeness, the above comes from a text book "First Course in Atmospheric Radiation", just in case there is debate about the source!
Linky here...
First Course in Atmospheric Radiation
This is an excellent book and contains material that relates well to the stuff posted earlier about energy states etc. including the references to that (supposed, by some her,) moron, Vonk.Linky here...
First Course in Atmospheric Radiation
See for example this, from p.229:
In Chapter 2, I pointed out that EM radiation has both wavelike and particle-like properties. Recall that there are times when radiation must be viewed as waves, times when it must be viewed as a shower of quantized particles having energy E = hν, and, finally, times when it doesn’t matter which view you take. The absorption of radiation by gases turns out to be one of those cases in which the quantized (particle) nature of radiation comes to the forefront. Simply stated, interactions between radiation and individual gas molecules — whether absorption or emission — are possible only for photons having energies satisfying certain criteria. Those criteria are largely determined by the arcane, and sometimes counterintuitive, laws of quantum mechanics.
Stuff which I recall being mocked repeatedly by one or other (or both?) of GT and Gear when I referred to it some months back. At that point any link to quantum effects was dismissed out of hand by our friend(s).
Can't provide and opinion about the book, since I don't own a copy, but if its covering the above, then it should be fine.
For what its worth, I agree that treating the IR radiation as photons (and consider them to be just like any other particle for the purposes of concept) is essential!
Bit difficult to have a rational discussion to any great depth about all this stuff if the other party refuses to enter the realm of photons and quantum molecular energy states, and tbh I think the jargon makes it sound a lot harder than it is! From my point of view its just a bunch of billiard balls (photons) bashing into other billiard balls held together with springs (molecules), for the purposes of much of this.
Facefirst said:
Dear All,
Having done my best to read the other threads, keep up with this one as it happens, and read the papers linked to (and their sources, and the rebuttals, and the counters) I think it best that I concede that I was wrong in posting here and that I have been and continue to be totally out of my depth.
So, apologies to those who's time I have wasted and who's feathers I have ruffled, but please note that it was never my intention to do so and I have tried my level best to remain civil, open, and honest.
So why did I do it? I must confess that my aversion to 'climate change skepticism' came about from my dealings with other contrary viewpoints - the anti-vaxers, the 9/11 truthers, the junk science peddlers have all shown similar techniques and abased science and peoples understanding of evidence for their own agendas. So when I see 'skeptics' arguing against the orthodoxy I take that with a huge pinch of salt. And with climate change, the attendant arguments that also contain references to conspiracy and huge, faceless forces at work and that is eerily similar to the tactics used by some of those I mentioned earlier. If you really want a case study, spend some time dealing with 9/11 'truth' (much to my shame my Dad is a 'truther') - it really is shocking the way that science is abused, but there are some similarities to the way in which the skeptics frame their arguments (this is no comment on the arguments them selves). These include:
Citing single sources
Researchers publishing outside of their fields
Refusing to accept peer review as in any way valid
Assuming conspiracy on the part of everyone....except the people they cite
Quoting out of context
Some of the less erudite posters on here have done exactly that, and only a dozen or so have been willing to engage with the evidence as presented. In doing so - and allowing for frustration and sniping - they have made some very compelling arguments and these have shifted my position on the subject from one of conviction to, shall we say, caution and intrigue. In the past few days I have ready nearly 900 pages on this forum, 15 papers on topics as diverse of the quantum properties of CO2 through oceanographic data collection to statistical analysis and have thoroughly enjoyed it all.
I still don't buy the arguments that this is a global conspiracy, and I still think prudent use of natural resources is the correct way to proceed.
There. I said it. Carry on and keep up the good work.
FF
PS. A special thanks to Dean and others who valiantly stepped in to the fray and to TB and Guan et al for maintaining their cool.
no conspiracy, no hoaxHaving done my best to read the other threads, keep up with this one as it happens, and read the papers linked to (and their sources, and the rebuttals, and the counters) I think it best that I concede that I was wrong in posting here and that I have been and continue to be totally out of my depth.
So, apologies to those who's time I have wasted and who's feathers I have ruffled, but please note that it was never my intention to do so and I have tried my level best to remain civil, open, and honest.
So why did I do it? I must confess that my aversion to 'climate change skepticism' came about from my dealings with other contrary viewpoints - the anti-vaxers, the 9/11 truthers, the junk science peddlers have all shown similar techniques and abased science and peoples understanding of evidence for their own agendas. So when I see 'skeptics' arguing against the orthodoxy I take that with a huge pinch of salt. And with climate change, the attendant arguments that also contain references to conspiracy and huge, faceless forces at work and that is eerily similar to the tactics used by some of those I mentioned earlier. If you really want a case study, spend some time dealing with 9/11 'truth' (much to my shame my Dad is a 'truther') - it really is shocking the way that science is abused, but there are some similarities to the way in which the skeptics frame their arguments (this is no comment on the arguments them selves). These include:
Citing single sources
Researchers publishing outside of their fields
Refusing to accept peer review as in any way valid
Assuming conspiracy on the part of everyone....except the people they cite
Quoting out of context
Some of the less erudite posters on here have done exactly that, and only a dozen or so have been willing to engage with the evidence as presented. In doing so - and allowing for frustration and sniping - they have made some very compelling arguments and these have shifted my position on the subject from one of conviction to, shall we say, caution and intrigue. In the past few days I have ready nearly 900 pages on this forum, 15 papers on topics as diverse of the quantum properties of CO2 through oceanographic data collection to statistical analysis and have thoroughly enjoyed it all.
I still don't buy the arguments that this is a global conspiracy, and I still think prudent use of natural resources is the correct way to proceed.
There. I said it. Carry on and keep up the good work.
FF
PS. A special thanks to Dean and others who valiantly stepped in to the fray and to TB and Guan et al for maintaining their cool.
delusion, cultural phenonomem..
human nature and groupthink..
that gave us the tulip bubble, south sea bubble, various end of the worldcults, enron, madhof and of course a global financial meltdown 9sceptics like warren buffet, warning of weapons of financial destruction, years ago)
it will fade away, as hard economic choices are forced on ploticians, the tide is turning on green utopian visions of green energy allready, as engineers, experts say nice idea, but it doesn't work. how are we going to keep the lights on in 5 years?
Windfarms are an example here, enough people realise they are useless, yet one risks being called a climate change deniar, just to point out, the danish experience with wind
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff