Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out

I think that when presented with a solid scientific argument, I believe in the science. Like CFCs depleting the ozone in the atmosphere.

When it comes to global warming, I see nothing but evidence that climate changes and that it's certainly warmer now than 10,000 years ago. I have no reason to doubt it. The correlation between mathematical models and CO2 and "extra" warming caused by man? Not even close to being convinced.

As to whether I'd be skeptical of scientific claims (in general)? Of course. Not because I don't believe in the science, but because I'm not doing the verification of the data and results directly and we can see that these things can be a scam.

Plus it is only through skepticism that theories are made to stand up to scrutiny in the light of day.

 

On that note, I'd like to introduce the following article I ran across today, which I think gives an even-handed, readable yet informed overview of the email stuff and the context.

here.

barfo

 

I have two points.

1) It's nice to see they've figured out how to try to spin their way out of this. I am not buying it.
2) Ironic that when a geologist is a skeptic, he doesn't have the requisite training, experience, or expertise to have a valid opinion.

The bottom line is that Man Made Global Warming is a HYPOTHESIS, not a theory and not a law.

 

1) I didn't expect you to buy it. Your mind is made up. All climate scientists are cheaters and liars and the science is bunk. I get that.
2) I didn't post the article for the man's opinion about climate science, I posted it for his opinions about the email business and the context thereof. As I said.

barfo

 

My mind isn't made up. If there's actual compelling evidence that there's man made global warming, I'd be all over it like white on rice. Like I said, it's a hypothesis without compelling proof and I'll add that there's a religious fervour to trying to wish it were true.

The guy wrote a lot of stuff about how incredible these emails are. Incredible in the sense of the scientists being not credible.

 

Funny, it looks that way on the other side to me also. Lots of people who don't know shit about the subject insisting that the experts are wrong and they are right. Very much a faith-based, or at least an irrationality-based, approach.

I'm not saying one side is more that way than the other, or that all supporters of one side or the other are blind believers. There is a continuum on both sides.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of people in this debate don't have the scientific chops to understand the subject matter. So how do they decide what to believe? They decide based on their preconceptions.

In the end, science will (if we don't burn all the scientists at the stake first) figure out what's true and what isn't. That's my belief.

barfo

 

What would you consider "actual compelling evidence"? Serious question. What evidence would be sufficient to convince you?

barfo

 

I haven't seen anyone deny it here, have you? There are some questions about exactly what kind of a monkey it really is, though.

barfo

 

I think you are on a little bit of a witch hunt here. 13.7 million over 20 years isn't all that much. And realize that money mostly doesn't go into his pocket - the university takes a cut, the department takes a cut, and he pays salaries for assistants and buys equipment, travel expenses, publication expenses, etc.

And while it could be true that he faked data for each and every one of those grants and/or embezzled the money, you don't have any evidence that he did.

barfo

 

When you show me that you understand what he was even saying in that quote, then I'll take your conclusions seriously. What's the Osborn and Briffa 06 sensitivity test, for instance?

barfo

 

bluefrog is basically right, though it'd take more than just correlating some data with some effect. That the data proves there's a causal relationship is in doubt - you can map population vs. temperature and get a similar graph that looks like a correlation, or even world GDP vs. temperature.

But more to the point:

http://www.ausetute.com.au/cfcozone.html

This WWW page, and many like it, explain that there's a chemical reaction that goes on with CFCs and ozone that is guaranteed to happen. There's no argument based upon observed data, observations, hypotheses, consensus, etc. Nothing needs to be peer reviewed even. It's as basic a fact as 1+1 = 2. We also know how many gallons of CFCs were produced and consumed (let into the atmosphere) by man.

Show me something like that, which is definitive, and I'm a believer.

Denny Crane over and out.

 

This email business reminds me of when some politician gets caught taking bribes or having some brand of sex that he campaigns against. Those who already believe that everyone from that party are corrupt thinks their point of view has been indisputably proven true; those that don't assign the blame to the individual(s) rather than the entire group.

barfo

 

You are missing the point.

Money isn't everything. Guys like Corzine or the Kennedys have all the money they need. They want POWER. And that's what the scientists have and get. More power by spending $1.xM per year than I think you or I have, for example. Hell, the ability to fool policy makers into doing their bidding is power.