Global Warming: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Global Warming » Global Warming

Global Warming

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Last

Global Warming

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 3003

Posted 02/27/07 - 06:26 AM:	#61
Spencer's deeds label him a crank and if not a professional liar, then a professional crank. For example, his participation in the following: http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pages/articl... He has produced work for the George C. Marshall Institute. (This would be the professional crank part.) See also the oil-funded Tech Central Science Foundation. Oh, and then there is Spencer's support of intelligent design. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I So, here we have an article that uses two sources, both dubious (one outside the field who doesn't actually show what is claimed and another who is demonstrably in the pay of oil companies). The article has no mention of the (vast) majority opinion. Where in the article is the mention of the articles that appeared in scientific journals pointing out significant sources of error ignored in Spencer's work? Maybe the public might find that information valuable when judging his comments on scientific journals. Unless, of course, the scientifically published criticisms of Spencer's work are deeply flawed and every scientist that reads the journals has been keeping quiet as their part of the conspiracy. Edit: Of coure, Peiser has also received funding from oil companies for his work directly atacking the work of the IPCC. He gets around a lot for a social scientist. Edited by Kwalish Kid on 02/27/07 - 06:34 AM
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 252
Total Posts: 4915

Posted 03/01/07 - 12:39 AM:	#62
Kwalish Kid wrote: Spencer's deeds label him a crank and if not a professional liar, then a professional crank. For example, his participation in the following: http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pages/articl... So what? Many so called 'global warming experts' are from other faith backgrounds, or are atheists. Yours is a ad hominem argument. like suggesting Einstein played violin and was Jewish, therefore he must not be considered a 'proper' Physicist. Kwalish Kid wrote: He has produced work for the George C. Marshall Institute. (This would be the professional crank part.) See also the oil-funded Tech Central Science Foundation. Again false argument based on guilt by association. Some global warming experts are also members of Greenpeace etc and have been funded by left wing groups. Or is it, (in your mind) that only right~wing organisations are to be accused of having an agenda in relation to the Global Warming argument? Kwalish Kid wrote: Oh, and then there is Spencer's support of intelligent design. http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=080805I Here you resort to red herring argument. Kwalish Kid wrote: Re Spencer, Maybe the public might find that information valuable when judging his comments on scientific journals. Unless, of course, the scientifically published criticisms of Spencer's work are deeply flawed and every scientist that reads the journals has been keeping quiet as their part of the conspiracy. Provide me with the evidence of where Spencer's scientific papers concerning satellite measurements of global temperatures have been dismissed in peer reviews. Edited by Gramm on 03/01/07 - 12:46 AM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 3003

Posted 03/01/07 - 08:06 AM:	#63
Gramm wrote: So what? Many so called 'global warming experts' are from other faith backgrounds, or are atheists. Yours is a ad hominem argument. like suggesting Einstein played violin and was Jewish, therefore he must not be considered a 'proper' Physicist. Of course not. Why don't you look into the activities of that organization? One of their principles is to base scientific reasoning on climate change on Biblical principles. Again false argument based on guilt by association. Some global warming experts are also members of Greenpeace etc and have been funded by left wing groups. Or is it, (in your mind) that only right~wing organisations are to be accused of having an agenda in relation to the Global Warming argument? Actually, in this case guilt by association is a very powerful tool. Sure, some climatologists are members of Greenpeace, but all of them? On the other hand, you'll find that every scientists, or even person, who speaks out in the media against global warming is paid by a mineral exploration company. Every single one. These same people cannot get published in an actual scientific journal. So, either the mineral exploration companies are tireless champions of truth or they are promoting people from the fringes of science with no regard to the worth of that science. Here you resort to red herring argument. People who want to judge this man's ability to reason may want to know about his other intellectual projects. Information about the character of global warming deniers is important information because we who are not climatologists cannot actually do the science ourselves. We have to find out who we can trust. Neither of the scientists presented in your article seem very trustworthy. Provide me with the evidence of where Spencer's scientific papers concerning satellite measurements of global temperatures have been dismissed in peer reviews. You, through the article you posted, are the one putting him forward as an expert. The only claim in support of his expertise is the claim that he is, "a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures." The evidence against his science in the field is that he could not produce a paper which, we can infer from the statements of the editor of Science, was not of, "acceptable scientific quality." One might consider F. J. Wentz, M. Schabel, Nature 394, 661 (1998) to be a criticism of the underlying data that Spencer seems to rely upon. Here's an interesting story about Spencer's response to the paper. The route to publication (or publicizing) of the paper is interesting. I'm not sure about the veracity of the link, however. People might want to do their own research. http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies...
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 252
Total Posts: 4915

Posted 03/01/07 - 04:28 PM:	#64
Kwalish Kid wrote: On the other hand, you'll find that every scientists, or even person, who speaks out in the media against global warming is paid by a mineral exploration company. Every single one. That is palpable nonsense, even for you. There are hundreds of lesser well known climatologists (and other allied field scientists) who have disputed the Global warming doomsday scenarios. Furthermore, the oft quoted claim by the IPCC that there is virtually complete consensus on the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming, is nothing more than dillusional propaganda. Science is not about consensus, most especially when the research concerning Global warming is still in its infancy. And speaking about highly qualified dissenters to the whole "science by consensus" way of doing Global Warming research...ever heard of Richard Lindzen? He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen. Why ? Probably because most people don't understand the necessarily skeptical predisposition that science requires of all researchers in relation to their suppositions and theoretical positions. In effect, scientists must let go of all potential presumtions otherwise, they run the risk of tainting their own work with bias. So, in the light of the above, lets look at the matter of Co2 upon so much of the Global Warming claims depend. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law. Yet there is now compelling evidence to show that increased levels of Co2 actually cool significant portions of atmosphere. http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004JD00509... The IPCC and others know about this and other significant research ...and what do they do ? Do they add it to their findings, or alter their press releases? No, no such thing...they ignore it of course. My my, how "scientific" of them.. Kwalish Kid wrote: Information about the character of global warming deniers is important information because we who are not climatologists cannot actually do the science ourselves. We have to find out who we can trust. Neither of the scientists presented in your article seem very trustworthy. And we should trust such luminary yet unqualified to speak scientists like Dr David Suzuki whose Science background is the study of Fruitflies. Or Al Gore, the proven self promoting liar of a past Clinton Administration? Or Tim Flannery whose scientific qualification is paleontology and was nothing but a glorified natural museum curator before he hitched his star (and fortune) by promoting the Doom and Gloom GW scenarios. Or James Lovelock, who has a degree in Medicine, and who claims the world is living organism called Gaia and that we should all go nuclear. I posted this material earlier in this thread. You seemed to have completely missed it. It concerns Svensmark's research into the influence of cosmic radiation and an article written by the ex editor of New Scientist in relation to bias. Perhaps you should read it. And please resist the temptation of claiming that they are all cranks. As Lindzen said many years ago concerning "Global Warming".... "...the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1... Gramm Edited by Gramm on 03/01/07 - 05:15 PM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 3003

Posted 03/01/07 - 08:05 PM:	#65
Gramm wrote: That is palpable nonsense, even for you. Oh, come on. The two you managed to drag up in the article above both get money from oil companies. Find any other. There are hundreds of lesser well known climatologists (and other allied field scientists) who have disputed the Global warming doomsday scenarios. Really. Please point us to a list of these supposed hundreds of climatologists who dispute global warming. Oh, wait, our readers here might have missed that nice sophistical turn to "doomsday scenarios". Regardless, find the climatologists. Furthermore, the oft quoted claim by the IPCC that there is virtually complete consensus on the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming, is nothing more than dillusional propaganda. Science is not about consensus, most especially when the research concerning Global warming is still in its infancy. Let's see. There are now years of research in this field and most researchers are quite willing to acknowledge the reality of global warming. The published reviews of scientific journals finds no dissent from the consensus. The nutjob you find in the Telegraph says differently, but for many reasons I find this unconvincing. Please, find some scientific publication that dissents from the consensus. And speaking about highly qualified dissenters to the whole "science by consensus" way of doing Global Warming research...ever heard of Richard Lindzen? He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen. Why ? Probably because most people don't understand the necessarily skeptical predisposition that science requires of all researchers in relation to their suppositions and theoretical positions. No. I bet it's the article in Harpers that exposed the amount of money that he's paid by oil companies. Since I don't actually do climatology, I have to weed through the sicentists to find the ones I can trust. And I obviously can't trust a guy like Linzen.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]

Cyberflaneur
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 05, 2005
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 171

Posted 03/01/07 - 09:32 PM:	#66
there's near unanimity among climate scientists regarding this issue. Human causes has had a significant impact on the earth's climate.

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 252
Total Posts: 4915

Posted 03/02/07 - 12:36 AM:	#67
Kwalish Kid wrote: Oh, come on. The two you managed to drag up in the article above both get money from oil companies. Think about it Kwalish. Did they get alleged funding before or after they did their initial research. If the latter, then your bleating about nothing, because if their findings were uncovered prior to such financial support, then funding from those sectors is logical, most particularly if such research exonerates human industry. So unless you can prove they were funded to deliberately lie or distort their research findings (after or during the research process) so that it would benefit the "oil companies" etc, then I suggest your argument of guilt by association is utterly hollow. Kwalish Kid wrote: Please point us to a list of these supposed hundreds of climatologists who dispute global warming. The list is too long. But let me remind you of the claim you made that all climatologists are in agreement. The fact that there are plenty of dissenting voices shows that your claim is materially false to begin with. If a single dissenting voice exists, then your claim to consensus is phoney. Kwalish Kid wrote: Oh, wait, our readers here might have missed that nice sophistical turn to "doomsday scenarios". Sarcasm doesn't add any substance to your argument. The phase "Global Warming Doomsday scenarios" have been used by advocates of Global Warming to scare people for a very long time. I have already covered the scare tactics being used by GW doomsday activists. Please do me the courtesy of reading the material. Kwalish Kid wrote: Let's see. There are now years of research in this field and most researchers are quite willing to acknowledge the reality of global warming. The published reviews of scientific journals finds no dissent from the consensus. Of course there is no dissent in consensus science. But Consensus science is just another word for Junk Science. As I keep trying to tell you, science is not done by a show of hands. Science is done through repetitive experimentation and all within an environment of skepticism. Furthermore, if you persue a scientific idea from a base of flawed assumptions, then your results are going to be skewed. That's all there is to it. No amount of tossing graphs around like the famous Mann hockey stick is going to change that simple fact. The more you lie as a scientist, like Mann, the more you have to prop up your flawed evidence. The fact that GW advocates get hot under the collar about Mann's deliberate eradication of the mini Ice age of the 1700's to early 1800's is evidence of that. As for other dissenting researchers. There is plenty of dissent that does not get published or finds it hard to get published under the current climate of hysteria.. Case in point. I note how you have deliberately ignored Svensmarks research. Why is that ? I remind you that his seminal work in this field was rejected by a number of major scientific magazines because it didn't fit in with their editorial policy concerning global warming. I already post the article links over that matter. Furthermore, you seem to have nothing to say about the Co2 research that clearly shows Co2 being not only an alleged "Global Warming" gas, but a cooling gas as well. Surely, even you can see, that such research makes a mockery of the claim by the IPCC that Co2 is the major global warming gas problem. (That in itself being another convenient lie), because as any climatologist will testify, the greatest part of the atmosphere involved in Global Warming is H2O which as a vapour is classified as a GW and GC gas. In any-case, what's the point of debating with you if you don't do some basic scientific research of your own ? Kwalish Kid wrote: The nutjob you find in the Telegraph says differently, but for many reasons I find this unconvincing. Nut Job...!!!! My my...the moment a highly respected editor of science questions the whole Junk science approach to global warming you have to call him a nut job. Tsk tsk typical of GW fanatics.. Kwalish Kid wrote: Since I don't actually do climatology, I have to weed through the scientists to find the ones I can trust. And I obviously can't trust a guy like Linzen. Ermm...it's Lindzen actually. That aside; since your admiting to not being a climatologist...then how do you know who to trust ? Seems like you place an awful lot of your trust in committees with their own nameless and faceless so called climate experts. But guess what ? Most of the people running the IPCC etc haven't the vaguest academic background in Climatology. And since Lindzen blew the whistle on how the IPCC does do its science, then you should be thinking very seriously about just who it is that you are placing so much foolish trust in. After~all you do realize that Lindzen himself WAS a member of the IPCC. 'Lindzen was a lead author of one chapter of the IPCC report and was an author of the NAS report.' http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00095B... Edited by Gramm on 03/02/07 - 01:03 AM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 535

Posted 03/02/07 - 01:05 AM:	#68
Grimm posted Yet there is now compelling evidence to show that increased levels of Co2 actually cool significant portions of atmosphere. Yes the stratosphere, that's the bit where nothing lives, and there is no significant ice, to melt, so what? There is nothing in the first two references which appear to contradict global warming. The cooling of the stratosphere may not be as well understood as the troposphere, but it is predicted by theory and models as these references suggest. There is little doubt that the lower troposphere is warming. From the first link it concludes: So releasing more carbon dioxide may not only increase global warming but may also contribute to the formation of the ozone hole. Doesn't this suggest that reducing CO2 is even more important?
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 252
Total Posts: 4915

Posted 03/02/07 - 01:29 AM:	#69
perseus wrote: [i]Grimm posted Yet there is now compelling evidence to show that increased levels of Co2 actually cool significant portions of atmosphere. Grimm..Cute one there Percy. perseus wrote: Yes the stratosphere, that's the bit where nothing lives, and there is no significant ice, to melt, so what? The "so what" of it is that it is part and parcel of a deeply complex system. So unless your prepared to give the same irrelevance to the Ozone Hole argument..(after~all, who lives at the South or North Poles.), then I suggest your argument is flawed. perseus wrote: There is nothing in the first two references which appear to contradict global warming. The cooling of the stratosphere may not be as well understood as the troposphere, but it is predicted by theory and models as these references suggest. Well hold your horses there Percy. Who told you that the troposphere is well understood ? Fact is it is a highly complex system that is far too difficult for us to model even now with the most advance computers and computing programs. There is a huge amount that we DONT KNOW. That (whether you like it or not) IS FACT. perseus wrote: There is little doubt that the lower troposphere is warming. From the first link it concludes: So releasing more carbon dioxide may not only increase global warming but may also contribute to the formation of the ozone hole. Doesn't this suggest that reducing CO2 is even more important? Note the word "May" there Percy. They are being speculative. it is a big gap between "May" and Definitely does. Besides which the point of my Co2 Graphs etc is to show how the IPCC's claim that Co2 is ONLY a Warming gas, is patently false. The material I posted supports that position. Furthermore, no one said that global warming may or may not be real, what I said and what I question is the anthropogenic aspect of so called GW. Gramm
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 535

Posted 03/02/07 - 05:24 AM:	#70
Grimm: The point I was making is that the temperature of the stratosphere has no direct relevence to ecosystems, that it has an indirect effect is the point the reference you posted was making. It's presence supports climate models, and therfore supports global warming. The ozone 'hole' is (or at least was) very important, since stratospheric ozone absorbs UV radiation, so a reduction in this would allow more UV to reach the ground destroying plankton and the entire ecosystem. The effect on the ground is the essential part. You cannot say that the cooling of a specific layer of atmosphere disproves any aspect of tropospheric warming , if anything it supports it. The selective way you display graphs without the explanation behind them will simply confuse people. To them the atmosphere either warms or it cools, and their vote counts just as much as the most knowledgeable climate scientist. It seems to me that there is so much evidence supporting global warming its criticism can be safely placed alongside other far fetched conspiracy theories ranging from 'man did not step on the moon' to the 9/11 US government involvement'. Conspiracy theorists look at all the mass of data and try to isolate any part to fit their theory so it sounds credible. Edited by perseus on 03/02/07 - 05:40 AM
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Last

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.