N2264J

What I may think about it is beside the point. I would be interested to hear from scientists familiar with the data telling us what he may be leaving out or where his logic might be flawed. If science is not peer reviewed, it's just an opinion.

OK. Google "National Academy of Science global warming" and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Both organizations have a high concentration of Nobel laureates and make the same basic claims although some details may vary:

- global climate change is happening
- mankind is causing it
- it's going to be bad

Good luck on your quest for knowledge.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

jungle

An article from 2004 that gives high marks to UN reports that have since been proven both political in nature and poor in science. Somehow this just isn't going to get it.

Concensus is really meaningless until we actually know the cause, effects and the viability of any solutions proposed and their effects. I can show concensus that the earth is flat if we go back far enough in peer approved writing.

Don't you find it interesting that the loudest noises are selling something(cap and trade) that has proven to be ineffective? Don't you find it interesting that the dissent is not selling anything but asking for a higher standard of evidence that action is required and will be effective?

Pure science is a wonderful thing, but the world is really interested in the practical application of science. Since many of the predictions made in 2004 were derived from poor models and have since proved incorrect, it brings into doubt the solutions proposed then and now. It doesn't help that many of the loudest hucksters are heavily invested in certain outcomes and seek political solutions that may benefit them regardless of their actual effect.

Then of course there is this little monkey wrench:

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.


Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what is the "correct" temperature for Earth and how do we get there?


Link to graphics and a better explanation:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/1...ast-12-months/


Good luck in your quest for knowledge!

Winged Wheeler

Peer review does not magically turn an opinion into science. A scientific proposition is one that is verifiable and falsifiable. Peer review is supposed to provide the feedback loop that does/does not verify procedures and results and does/does not falsify the hypothesis. The science may be improved by peer review, but it exists prior to, and independent of, any peer review.

I will check around the websites you recommend, with an open mind, and I will write again here what I find.

I take it from what you say here is that you won't/can't read the text of Lord Monckton's testimony to congress. It is your right to let other people do your thinking for you. Good luck on your quest for a backbone.

WW

N2264J

A layman drawing conclusions from raw scientific data is like Cheney and Rumsfeld interpreting raw intelligence. We all know how well that turned out.

George Monbiot: This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong | Comment is free | The Guardian

jungle

A statement showing a lack of trust in individual reason, political alignment and complete disregard of recent data all in one.

Many people do have both careers and egos tied to the argument that makes a change in position sticky for reasons unrelated to logic.

Again, the date of the article is is old enough to not take into account the most recent data. Who denies now sir?

Winged Wheeler

I don't claim to have the training, or the smarts of some PhD. But I will not be a lemming--following the intelligencia over the cliff because they think it's a good idea.

I am perfectly capable of assembling facts, using inductive logic, and making a conclusion. My conclusion should be judged on its merits, whether or not I have a degree and whether or not it is peer reviewed has no effect on a properly formed conclusion.

Your argument here is a red herring. That makes it a weak argument. Not because I disagree with you per se, but because you present a weak case.

I will read your link later when I have a little more time.

WW

jungle

Rather than arcing off on tangents, let me ask two questions.

First, Is there solid proof that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause of any climate change? We all know that the earth has gone through radical changes of climate prior to man's existence. Has man now gained control or a high degree of influence over the climate by his activities?

Second, What is the correct temperature for the planet and how do we get to that temperature?

Winged Wheeler

OK, I read your link. I am not convinced--that should come as no surprise.

Monbiot starts out with an ad hominem attack on Monckton's qualifications to comment on this issue. One of his deficiencies (according to Monbiot) is that he is trained as a journalist. A curious and, I think, counterproductive argument from a man who is himself a journalist.

The specifics in this article are, like many arguments on either side, cherry picked (in Monbiot's own words). I am happy to debate any specific issues, but I am not going to go point by point through Monbiot's article.

I will, however, make 2 remarks:

1. Monbiot criticizes non-scientist Monckton for talking science. I looked but was unable to find similar criticisms by Monbiot of Al Gore. Perhaps different standards apply for those with whom Monbiot agrees?

2. Monbiot concludes with the following-- "A scientific paper is one published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This means it has been subject to scrutiny by other experts in the field."
I disagree. A scientific paper is a scientific paper prior to its publication in some journal. Scrutiny by experts is good--it should help prevent fraud, allow for verification (or falsification), and move the discussion forward, but it is not a necessary condition for science.

Did science occur at the bike shop and at Kittyhawk, or only later when it was published?

WW

N2264J

When dealing with systems as huge as the global climate, you're working primarily with probabilities. You can't duplicate this stuff in a wind tunnel.

Look, we've been through all of this before. In the 50s, peer reviewed science started to link cigarette smoking with lung cancer. The tobacco industry hired medical doctors, celebraties and quack scientists to publically characterize those papers and studies as "junk science."

That worked for a while but today you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't think cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.

We have to get this right because the consequences are global, not just some individual smokers dying of cancer.

jungle

I see you can't or won't answer my two simple questions.
You have plucked another red herring out of the can, and I am glad to see it.
What of tobacco? After everyone has seen it to be harmful, governments around the world continue to participate in the manufacture and distribution by making far more in tax revenue than any of the tobacco companies make on the product. The solution for government was to step up their profits rather than eliminate sales.

But, you digress, and knowing that climate is complex look away from complex causes and pin all of your hopes to CO2-ignoring other possible mechanisms for heating or cooling.

So, what is the correct temperature for Earth?