Resignation over flawed paper "debunking" man-made global warming

Apologies if you were offended.

You come across as abrasive and insulting sometimes and I don't know if you're trolling or trying to have a genuine debate. Saying things like "Damn you global warming geniuses got knocked out." doesn't help your credibility. Like I posted earlier, it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation.

Actually the CERN CLOUD results don't prove a strong cosmic-ray/cloud/climate connection. The study represents a major step forward in our understanding of particle formation, showing the detailed measurements of the influences of ammonia, organics and ions from galactic cosmic rays. LINK

I'm not sure what you mean but even Denny mentioned that Kirby sounded contradictory on the importance of the findings.

We are getting warmer and I'm convinced from what I've read that AGW is the best explanation. In fact, it is the dominant paradigm for climate research. Similar to plate tectonics with geology, string theory with theoretical physics or evolution with biology it has become the dominant paradigm because of empirical evidence, confirmed by numerous studies. There are competing theories, each supported by various studies, but they are disjointed and don't form cohesive picture of climate like AGW. There are holes in the theory but it can answer more questions than competing theories can. It's also passed through more scrutiny than other theories.

I honestly don't have any solutions.

I don't think there is enough evidence of a looming catastrophic event to warrant changes on emissions and such. I do think think emission reductions are good because of ocean acidification, air pollution, etc...

If the "alarmist scenario" is accurate then I think we should end the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century through government mandates, starting with energy and manufacturing. What is your superior solution?

Continued warming would be bad for many people because of rising sea waters and increasingly erratic weather patterns.

I don't think there is a "normal" PPM of CO2 for the earth.

Is there anything I missed?

 

I like your take. Personally this is why I feel monte carlo type simulations are the only worthwhile models in the Earth sciences because you should only be talking about probabilities with events and phenomena that are subject to a myriad of variable inputs, contain huge data gaps and are subject to plain old fashioned luck. The trouble I see in many models in the work I do (sea level rise for example) is that many of them try to be deterministic instead of stochastic and policy makers like to take these results and point to them as points of fact rather than asking (or even knowing to ask) how these things are constructed let alone validated.

 

I'm not normally offended, continue your attacks if you wish. I believe in free speech.

Yeah that is just fun trash talk.

Well you're wrong:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html

The CERN experiments clearly stated cosmic rays have a significant impact. Nor do I need CERN to prove you rely on statistical noise.

That is an abhorring comparison. String theory is a religious concept that can never be tested and has gone nowhere since the 1970s.

You are really going to lose a lot of credibility if you compare that to evolution or plate tectonics.

Hmm, your solutions are still poorly thought out. Your priorities are in the wrong order.

The IPCC said maybe ~100,000 people perish in the WORST scenario (under 3%). Whereas 3 million people die of starvation every year. You want to make the quality of life worse for the poorest 1 billion people on Earth.

 

The UN and KIEOs are left-leaning institutions btw. So no need to presume they are objective arbiters. They do not know how to run their organization efficiently either.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/the_globalwarming_debate_isnt.html

 

No, it really doesn't. The study was about cosmic rays and clouds. If you can show me in the paper where the authors state that their results establish a connection between cosmic-rays, clouds and climate I'll be convinced. I think you'll find you're definitely wrong on this one.

From the WSJ article you linked to:

AGW is the dominant paradigm in climate science. Can you argue otherwise? How did it get there? Was it all politics and bullshit? If so you would need to question the whole institution of science.

OK, what are your superior solutions?

 

Are you saying politics has infiltrated science to the point we can't trust anything scientists say? Science as an institution has become stronger over the past several decades. Scientific methods are better, instruments are more accurate, understandings are deeper. We put a man on the moon, mapped the human genome and built the WWW.

There are mechanisms built into the scientific process to weed out bias. Some bullshit gets through but scientists are a skeptical group by nature (my dad is a marine scientist). People try to recreate the research or scrutinize the findings a little closer and the whole thing falls apart. I really like the analogy of a theory being like a house of bricks. The bricks are facts that have been proven through research, each builds upon the strength of the previous one and they combine to make a cohesive, logical structure.

 

Scientists may have an impact on politics, but I think you're offbase about science "infiltrating" politics, like it's some sort of agenda that scientists have. You make it sound like we're all gunning to further our political agendas and science is merely our weapon. That's just not the way it is. I've worked in a Dept. of Energy lab, a fortune 500 instrument company, major university lab and multiple biotech companies and none of the scientists I've ever run across are anything like you portray.

 

Your portrayal of the article is hardly convincing.

Read it first before you try to imply it is an opinion piece from the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html

 

This subject falls into a grey zone.

Also do not be naive, in the judicial system scientific experts are highly politicized and bought. Tire experts for example will completely fabricate their testimony in order to help their client. Bite marks are often attributed to defendants when nothing is certain. Pretending Scientists don't have an incentive to scare is disingenuous. Sometimes they do, especially in new fields.

I guess you haven't noticed how these suckers in Congress are subsidizing dubious and inefficient technologies.

 

Yeah until you read that these "opinions" are not all from the WSJ. They're from CERN and they report their conclusions.