2007-world record DROP in temps.

Parent Cafe
61

<p>kluge:</p>

<p>sry, but the only blog I read is cc, and I participate for entertainment. My beliefs are irrelevant; it’s more fun to take an opposing view to stir the pot. :)</p>

<p>I only post the earlier link bcos these are academic scientists with a different pov. Could they be quacks? Could they be on the take? Sure, but so could many others. However, before you try law school rule #3 (attack your opponents if you can’t argue the facts nor the law), suggest you point out why a professor at Wharton (or the other excellent universities) are of questionable purpose.</p>

62

<p>So where’d you hear about Heartland’s latest PR effort?</p>

63

<p>read about it in the newspaper.</p>

<p>btw: Oil and coal and other energy companies employ thousands of employees and pay lotsa taxes, so I have absolutely no qualms about their PR firms. IMO, as citizens, they have a right to address the government and public policy. Heck, even McCain, Obama and Clinton all have PR machines – the best in the bidness. :D</p>

64

<p>No question about a person’s right to lie to other people to advance their own interests, Bluebayou. But when it comes to something like climate change - a complex issue based on thousands of data points and numerous interrelated forces, well beyond your or my ability to form a meaningful scientific opinion - pretty much the only rational basis a person has to decide what to believe is the credibility of the people who opine on either side. And on the two sides of this debate we have:
(a) dozens of scientists around the word, of varying ideologies and opinions, who have been studying climate issues for several decades, and who have, independently and collectively arrived at a consensus about global warming and human activities role in it after publishing hundreds of peer-reviewed articles on topic; and
(b) a bunch of “pop-science” hacks who have been paid to lie to us before, funded by the same corporations who paid them to lie to us about tobacco, “frivolous lawsuits” and anything else which threatened their bottom line.</p>

<p>Doesn’t that fall into the “fool me once” category for you? Incidentaly, I managed to get through to the program, and who do I see? None other than the odious Steven Milloy! Now here’s a guy who has whored for industry for decades, who has lied to the American people on a regular basis for money, and the Heartland Institute puts him on the dais to preach to the choir. Perfect :)</p>

<p>So as long as you understand that the climate change “skeptics” viewpoints you see are, in fact, for the most part just the working of the coal and oil company PR efforts, we’re good.</p>

65

<p>Yes, and plenty of other leading “authorities” say something different. From an excerpt from the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society:</p>

<hr>

<pre><code>An inconvenient new peer-reviewed study published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology.

Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
</code></pre>

<hr>

<p>Of course, there will be more people citing other reports that basically say; “My expert is better than your expert”. I think the difference in the basic arguments here is that one side is willing to consider possibilities. They’re willing to see both sides of the argument. They aren’t willing to just jump on board on a position just because it popular. The other side will argue that the “experts” say it’s so; therefor it’s so. Unfortunately, they aren’t willing to consider other possibilities. That their experts aren’t the ONLY experts. That maybe the research done wasn’t conclusive. Then again; there are people who believe that they voted for a representative, therefor they just need to trust them. That the teachers in the schools are the authority there, so they must be always right. And thus; if a scientist or group of scientists say it; it must be true. The problem is when other scientists dispute the opinion. Because it isn’t popular, they must have some hidden motive.</p>

66

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, there’s a logical fallacy if I’ve ever seen one. It doesn’t matter the purveyor of the information or the argument (when it comes to its validity or not); all that matters is what’s being stated. Let’s say Person A is a Nazi, cross burning, racist, sexist, homophobic, wife-beater, serial murderer. Let’s say he says a dog is an animal. Now, do his less than reputable positions and actions say anything about the validity of his claims? No of course not; a dog is an animal regardless of who says it. Now, let’s say that Person B is given $1,000,000 by the nefarious dog lobbyists to say that a dog is an animal. Again, does the fact that this man was paid to say that dogs are animals have any bearing on the fact that dogs are animals? Again no.</p>

<p>If you cannot evaluate the validity of a claim independent of who is saying it, you are in no position to discuss the validity of the claims. There are lots of arguments against the global warming skeptics a whole lot more valid than this tripe about PR firms and “scientific consensus.” The truth is the truth regardless of whom or how many people are promulgating it.</p>

67

<p><a href=“b”>quote=kluge</a> a bunch of “pop-science” hacks…

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A Wharton Professor? I’m sure the Penn credential committee would appreciate your insights.</p>

68

<p>LOL zarathustra–your argument is like “don’t bother me with the truth, I know what I believe.”</p>

69

<p>If all the “experts” said mankind was at fault; or at least if all the people saying mankind was at fault, were “experts”; I would have no problem.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, not all the experts say mankind is at fault. So now, one must decide for themselves. Unfortunately, there are those that think that because the majority of experts say mankind is at fault, then it’s true and that’s good enough for them. </p>

<p>That’s where we differ. Just because the majority of “experts” say it’s true, doesn’t make it so. I will not say with 100% assurance that mankind is or isn’t to blame significantly. But if I do come to the conclusion that they are, it’s sure in hell NOT going to be because the majority of experts say it’s so. Not too long ago, the majority of experts believed the world was flat and everything revolved around us. Not too long ago, the majority believed the inquisition, slavery, etc… was good.</p>

<p>Every day, we are finding out that science is being corrected in many of it’s past beliefs. But then again, that is what science is all about. Yes, there are many things that I believe that science and the “experts” promote. But I DON’T hold those beliefs solely because the majority; even the majority of experts; say it’s true. That is too narrow minded for me. I use the expert opinions as a source of information. It obviously holds more integrity than that of a non-expert. I just use all the information available to me at that point in time and I base an opinion on that. Should more information come about tomorrow or down the road, I will probably readdress the position again. Sometimes the additional information adds more validity to what my current position is. Sometimes it makes me need to rethink my current position.</p>

<p>I’m not saying which way on this topic is right. I am saying that anyone who believes what they believe because that’s what the “experts” tell them, does not have a valid position on the subject. It doesn’t matter if it’s the “experts” who are hired by the oil companies and corporate America who determine that climate change and global warming are natural occurrences, or if it’s the major university scientists and researchers who believe that mankind is largely at fault. Or even some independent researchers and experts who have different opinions all together. Sticking by any position only because an “expert” said it, is wrong. I remember asking a friend why she believed abortion was wrong. Her answer was; “well that’s the way I was raised”. I could respect her if she said she believed that life started at conception and it was killing a life. I could respect the other way around and that it’s just a glob of cells with no life and it’s OK. I can RESPECT both opinions. I can’t respect an opinion of “that’s the way I was raised”. I can’t respect; “That’s what the scientists say”. I can’t respect; “That’s what the government says”. </p>

<p>Many times, expert opinions have been wrong. I’m not saying it is or isn’t wrong now. Just that I won’t take a position solely because of “expert” opinions. From what I’ve read and studied from MANY DIFFERENT EXPERTS; I do believe that global warming and climate change are happening. I do believe obviously that mankind has had some contribution. I DON’T believe however that mankind is necessarily a MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR to the problem. I also don’t believe that there is a lot that mankind can do to alter the affects of global warming and climate change. But, if there are some people who don’t like to learn, think for themselves, and only base their positions on the opinions of others, then who am I to say they can’t. This is America; you’re free to believe it if you want.</p>

70

<p>For the skeptics. That must mean it’s definitely correct and accurate. So I guess the other reports that show that the sun has a much greater impact on the earth’s temperature than greenhouse gases must all be wrong.</p>

<p>I’m not saying you link is wrong. I’m asking; why do you know for a fact that the information there is any more accurate than the report that says differently? Is it because your study is more politically correct? Because it’s an “US” against “THEM” situation? Them being big business, big oil, government, etc… So, any position that they might have is automatically wrong because they only care about their profits. There’s a lot of scientists not hired by the big oil companies and government who believe that global warming and climate change are more of a natural cyclical occurrence than a man made situation. That it is something we have gone through before. Who knows? Maybe it’s just the arrogance of many people to honestly believe that they have so much power that they can change and alter what mother nature; or God if you believe in such; has done. Personally, I believe that we are very insignificant. That mother nature and/or God can and will kick our a$$ if necessary to put the world back into balance. Then again, I don’t think we are a major cause of climate change.</p>

<p>I do however believe that we are abusing our resources. We do pollute our air, water, and harm the land. I do believe that we should be designing new forms of energy and such to fix this issue. This issue affects our ability to live healthy and sustain the resources we need to survive. This however is a totally different topic compared to global warming or climate change.</p>

71

<p>

</p>

<p>No my argument is that is the entirely illogical to attack the purveyors of the information not the information itself (which any book on logic could tell you immediately). Did you even bother reading my post, or did all of those scary examples shut your brain down. I repeat; the truth is the truth regardless of whom or how many people are promulgating it.</p>

<p>I never actually make a judgement on the validity of the man made global warming theory, but I wouldn’t expect you to know understand that; it would involve actually reading.</p>

72

<p>Zarathustra (and Christcorp) your arguments would be entirely valid - if you had the ability to engage in a meaningful assessment of the science based on your own knowledge and access to data. But you don’t. I don’t either. Christcorp has been convinced by a variety of “pop-science” level arguments which I’ve seen before, and which have superficial appeal. The problem is that neither I nor any of you have the level of scientific expertise to know if the appeal is anything other than superficial. For a still-layman level discussion of some of Christcorps pet theories look here: [url=<a href=“http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/the-trouble-with-sunspots/]RealClimate[/url”>RealClimate: The trouble with sunspots]RealClimate[/url</a>] and here: [url=<a href=“RealClimate: Water vapour: feedback or forcing?”>RealClimate: Water vapour: feedback or forcing?]RealClimate[/url</a>] Am I going to argye that those guys are right and Christcorps’ guys are wrong? Not based on my personal scientific knowledge, no. And those of you who presume to do so - do you really have the expertise to personally assess the science? I don’t think so.</p>

<p>Which means that unless you’re colossally arrogant or delusional about the limits of your own knowledge and expertise, the only rational basis for deciding - however tentatively - which side is right is to assess the qualifications of those holding the different opinions.</p>

<p>So why do you guys think you know so much? :)</p>

73

<p>I don’t know why, but when I read this thread I get the distinct feeling that Kluge has more than a few investments on the line…it’s just a feeling.</p>

74

<p>Kluge:</p>

<p>can you help me understand why you continually attack the posters personally (e.g., “you’re colossally arrogant or delusional…”) for suggesting a different pov?</p>

75

<p>Kluge; I think the others have said it all quite well. You have your experts and others have theirs. But because the others aren’t the same experts as yours, theirs must automatically “Pop-Science” and only your experts know what they’re talking about.</p>

<p>You are correct that neither of us are experts. Therefor we have to look at the integrity and credentials of the people we are listening to. For some reason however; non of the people we site; even though they are distinguished in their fields also, and from very reputable institutions and such, are credible. Only your sources and experts. That’s what the problem is.</p>

76

<p>Collegemom2 - you got me. It’s true - I’ve got investments on the line. Three of them - age 18, 19 and 21. Call me selfish, but I’ve put a lot of work into those investments and I’m more than a little interested in seeing how they perform in future years.</p>

<p>In the meantime, other than venting your spleen and making ad hominem attacks - none of you have addressed the substance of what I wrote. C’mon, Christcorp - you’ve expressed confidence in “your experts” and you’ve posted a personal belief in some of their theories - my challenge to you is - based on what? I gave you a couple of links to articles aimed at a non-climate scientist audience which discuss why the “water vapor” and “solar fluctuations” theories are actually flawed. I don’t claim to be able to personally confirm or deny the data or the science behind the dispute (sorry for lacking humility) but apparently you do make that claim. So say so: say you’ve read the RealClimate articles and can personally debunk them from your own scientific knowledge of the subject matter.</p>

<p>Or admit that you are simply relying on the superficially persuasive arguments presented by the side of the debate you choose to believe, without actually being personally able to verify their claims.</p>

<p>Which is it? My position is pretty simple: if 99% of the scientists who have studied this subject matter over the past 30 years are in basic agreement, they’re probably right. And 99% appears to be a pretty accurate number. There will always be contrarians in science - we had a thread some months back about the 9/11 attack and the WTC towers collapse - the people who believe it was all a conspiracy, with the towers blown up by explosives placed ahead of time had a handful of scientists on their side, too. I went with the overwhelming majority then, too. I don’t see any difference here, except that the “contrarians” in each case are a different group, driven by different (if similar) forces.</p>

77

<p>This is creation (pseudo)science and (lack of) intelligent design all over again. Find one academic who takes a position contrary to the vast majority of scientists active in the field (and in which the the contrarian is often not), mix with a political agenda, and you have the illusion of controversy, whereas for those who have devoted their life’s work to experimental analysis there is none.</p>

78

<p>A 99% consensus!! Wow. I guess my skepticism has been totally unwarranted. I am sure if I had done more research I would have realized only the lunatic fringe could seriously argue the opposing view. I am still missing a few facts. How did all those consensus scientists decide to ignore the rapid and large climate changes that have been occurring over the past tens of thousands of years? How did they decide that the recent changes are man made if they don’t understand the past changes?</p>

79

<p>And Eded, your expert basis for concluding that all those scientists are “ignoring” all past instances of climate change is— what? C’mon, share with us the source of your expertise into what all of the climate scientists of the past 30 years have agreed to ignore. Because you wouldn’t make that accusation if you hadn’t carefully researched it personally, and concluded on the basis of valid evidence which you had personally vetted, correct?</p>

80

<p>Edad–you’re kidding, right? The vast, vast majority of climate scientists are fumbling idiots who forgot to notice the natural changes in climate while documenting and explaining the anthropomorphic ones? Whew! Thank god the more knowledgeable folk are there to correct those darn “experts.”</p>

<p>What makes you so sure they don’t “understand the past changes”? What is your basis for making that blanket statement? I’m sure darn missing that part of your pronouncement!</p>