|
Post by Jim on Apr 22, 2014 9:58:46 GMT -6
With the obvious manipulation of data that we have read about, there is reason for the lack of consensus. There isn't a lack of consensus at all. There is just a consensus that you don't like. Let me put it this way: Hydrocarbon producers, whose fingerprints are all over the published opposition to anthropogenic climate change (ACG) have an a pretty clear potential motive for profit which might at least theoretically entice them to advance a weak position. What is the incentive for a research scientist unaffiliated with industry to do so?Hi FB: I agree with you on the merits of ACC. I also agree that there is genuine scientific consensus on the broader issues. Still, you might be asking the wrong question above. There is strong financial and political incentive for politicians, a certain class of self-dealing activists and the press to sensationalize and overstate the level of certainty inherent in climate change modeling, to emphasize the worst case scenarios and to generally politicize the science. With respect to this particular field, it is the politicians and press that summarize, simplify and convey the science to the people. Enormous sums of money are at stake here and it is not just hydrocarbon producers who have a financial stake in the policies. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 23, 2014 2:32:20 GMT -6
There isn't a lack of consensus at all. There is just a consensus that you don't like. Let me put it this way: Hydrocarbon producers, whose fingerprints are all over the published opposition to anthropogenic climate change (ACG) have an a pretty clear potential motive for profit which might at least theoretically entice them to advance a weak position. What is the incentive for a research scientist unaffiliated with industry to do so?Hi FB: I agree with you on the merits of ACC. I also agree that there is genuine scientific consensus on the broader issues. Still, you might be asking the wrong question above. There is strong financial and political incentive for politicians, a certain class of self-dealing activists and the press to sensationalize and overstate the level of certainty inherent in climate change modeling, to emphasize the worst case scenarios and to generally politicize the science. With respect to this particular field, it is the politicians and press that summarize, simplify and convey the science to the people. Enormous sums of money are at stake here and it is not just hydrocarbon producers who have a financial stake in the policies. Jim Jim, I hope you saw a socratic element in my question to Ken. It's not that I think there is no possible motive for a scientist to back a bogus claim, but rather that the motive for coal miners, oil drillers etc to fund studies designed to weaken the case against carbon consumption is fairly obvious, and that the motive for a research scientist is somewhat less so. In your case, I can safely assume that you accept that a strong plurality of climate scientists believe that climate change is occurring, and that human activity is at least somewhat responsible for this. This is not an assumption I can make in Ken's case, however. He has demonstrated a rather consistent fondness for denying scientific consensus. We have seen him assert a lack of scientific consensus on the Theory of Evolution (far more settled than ACC) and on a variety of other smaller issues (e.g intravenous vitamin C, prayer research, etc).
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 23, 2014 8:38:47 GMT -6
Hi FB: I agree with you on the merits of ACC. I also agree that there is genuine scientific consensus on the broader issues. Still, you might be asking the wrong question above. There is strong financial and political incentive for politicians, a certain class of self-dealing activists and the press to sensationalize and overstate the level of certainty inherent in climate change modeling, to emphasize the worst case scenarios and to generally politicize the science. With respect to this particular field, it is the politicians and press that summarize, simplify and convey the science to the people. Enormous sums of money are at stake here and it is not just hydrocarbon producers who have a financial stake in the policies. Jim Jim, I hope you saw a socratic element in my question to Ken. It's not that I think there is no possible motive for a scientist to back a bogus claim, but rather that the motive for coal miners, oil drillers etc to fund studies designed to weaken the case against carbon consumption is fairly obvious, and that the motive for a research scientist is somewhat less so. In your case, I can safely assume that you accept that a strong plurality of climate scientists believe that climate change is occurring, and that human activity is at least somewhat responsible for this. This is not an assumption I can make in Ken's case, however. He has demonstrated a rather consistent fondness for denying scientific consensus. We have seen him assert a lack of scientific consensus on the Theory of Evolution (far more settled than ACC) and on a variety of other smaller issues (e.g intravenous vitamin C, prayer research, etc). Yes, I saw where you were going with your question. I felt the opportunity to bump the discussion along was worth my interjection though. I don't think I'm actually throwing Ken a lifeline with my reply. At least not a very good one with respect to the larger issues you raise. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 24, 2014 18:16:24 GMT -6
Ken, I want to follow up on this: With the obvious manipulation of data that we have read about, there is reason for the lack of consensus. While I acknowledge that the scientific case for ACC is weaker than that for evolution, your assertion that there is no consensus on either is a total non-starter. Regarding the topic at hand: climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensusWhy do you deny such a high degree of consensus? To whom are you listening on this issue and why? FB
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 30, 2014 11:02:04 GMT -6
This is a fluff piece on Katherine Hayhoe, but it did prompt me to do more research on her background Christian Scientist Katherine Hayhoe Named Among TIME Magazine's 100 Most Influential www.gospelherald.com/articles/51048/20140428/christian-scientist-katherine-hayhoe-named-among-time-magazines-most-influential.htm#sthash.WSjtE5BI.dpufIt's interesting how nasty a reception she has received from some evangelical/conservative mouthpieces. This is from her Wiki bio,en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Hayhoe"Katharine Anne Scott Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist and associate professor of political science at Texas Tech University, where she is director of the Climate Science Center.[2] She is the author of more than 60 peer-reviewed publications, with an h-index of 28,[3] and is also the author of a book, "A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions", co-authored with her husband, Andrew Farley. In addition, she is the co-author of some of the US Global Change Research Program's reports, as well as some of the National Academy of Sciences' reports.[4] John Abrahamhas called her "perhaps the best communicator on climate change."[5] Time magazine listed her among the 100 most influential people in 2014.[6][7] The documentary Years of Living Dangerouslyfeatured her communication with religious audiences in their first episode. Personal lifeEdit Hayhoe, who is an evangelical Christian, was born and raised in Toronto; both her parents were missionaries.[5] Her father retired from being the science and technology coordinator for the Toronto District School Board.[8]and is now associate professor of education at Tyndale University College & Seminary. Newt Gingrich bookEdit Hayhoe wrote a chapter of a book by Newt Gingrich about climate change in 2009, and, in 2011, was told by Gingrich's co-author, Terry Maple, that it had been accepted.[9] However, Gingrich announced in late 2011 that this chapter was dropped on his request, saying "We didn't know that they were doing that, and we told them to kill it."[10] Upon finding out that her chapter had been dropped, Hayhoe stated, "I had not heard that" and tweeted that she had spent over 100 unpaid hours working on the chapter.[11] Some have speculated that Gingrich dropped her chapter as a result ofRush Limbaugh calling her a "climate babe",[12] and because Marc Morano wrote many articles on his website, Climate Depot, attacking her.[9] This, as well as her appearing on Bill O'Reilly's TV show, led to her receiving nearly 200 hate-mail messages the following day."
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 30, 2014 13:08:55 GMT -6
This is a fluff piece on Katherine Hayhoe, but it did prompt me to do more research on her background Christian Scientist Katherine Hayhoe Named Among TIME Magazine's 100 Most Influential www.gospelherald.com/articles/51048/20140428/christian-scientist-katherine-hayhoe-named-among-time-magazines-most-influential.htm#sthash.WSjtE5BI.dpufIt's interesting how nasty a reception she has received from some evangelical/conservative mouthpieces. This is from her Wiki bio,en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Hayhoe"Katharine Anne Scott Hayhoe is an atmospheric scientist and associate professor of political science at Texas Tech University, where she is director of the Climate Science Center.[2] She is the author of more than 60 peer-reviewed publications, with an h-index of 28,[3] and is also the author of a book, "A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions", co-authored with her husband, Andrew Farley. In addition, she is the co-author of some of the US Global Change Research Program's reports, as well as some of the National Academy of Sciences' reports.[4] John Abrahamhas called her "perhaps the best communicator on climate change."[5] Time magazine listed her among the 100 most influential people in 2014.[6][7] The documentary Years of Living Dangerouslyfeatured her communication with religious audiences in their first episode. Personal lifeEdit Hayhoe, who is an evangelical Christian, was born and raised in Toronto; both her parents were missionaries.[5] Her father retired from being the science and technology coordinator for the Toronto District School Board.[8]and is now associate professor of education at Tyndale University College & Seminary. Newt Gingrich bookEdit Hayhoe wrote a chapter of a book by Newt Gingrich about climate change in 2009, and, in 2011, was told by Gingrich's co-author, Terry Maple, that it had been accepted.[9] However, Gingrich announced in late 2011 that this chapter was dropped on his request, saying "We didn't know that they were doing that, and we told them to kill it."[10] Upon finding out that her chapter had been dropped, Hayhoe stated, "I had not heard that" and tweeted that she had spent over 100 unpaid hours working on the chapter.[11] Some have speculated that Gingrich dropped her chapter as a result ofRush Limbaugh calling her a "climate babe",[12] and because Marc Morano wrote many articles on his website, Climate Depot, attacking her.[9] This, as well as her appearing on Bill O'Reilly's TV show, led to her receiving nearly 200 hate-mail messages the following day." Climate denial, like Young Earth Creationism, starts with a belief and then proceeds toward any available confirmatory information. The real tragedy is that there doesn't seem to be any laudable reason for the belief in the first place. It appears to flow out of the pro-business "drill baby, drill" mentality, which I would hope has nothing to do with religion. I personally don't understand why a religious person would be opposed to conservation of natural resources and general stewardship.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on May 11, 2014 1:52:27 GMT -6
Here's the new IPCC report: www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/I've spent a bit of time with it. There are summary pages if you are less inclined to dig in.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Oct 15, 2015 5:42:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Oct 22, 2015 8:50:50 GMT -6
What would that position on climate change be?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Oct 26, 2015 19:05:48 GMT -6
What would that position on climate change be? I thought it was pretty explicit. What part wasn't understandable?
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Oct 26, 2015 19:36:31 GMT -6
Okay Ken, this bio is from Wikipedia concerning Dr. Dyson. Do you share this opinion?
He is among signatories of a letter to the UN criticizing the IPCC[58][59] and has also argued against ostracizing scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change, stating that "heretics" have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress. "[H]eretics who question the dogmas are needed ... I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies."[56]
Dyson says his views on global warming have been strongly criticized. In reply, he notes that "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."[60]
In 2008, he endorsed the now common usage of "global warming" as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change, referring to "measurements that transformed global warming from a vague theoretical speculation into a precise observational science."[61]
He has, however, argued that political efforts to reduce the causes of climate change distract from other global problems that should take priority:
I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.[62]
Since originally taking interest in climate studies in the 1970s, Dyson has suggested that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could be controlled by planting fast-growing trees. He calculates that it would take a trillion trees to remove all carbon from the atmosphere.[63][64]
In a 2014 interview, he said that "What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate ... It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled."[2]
|
|
|
Post by ken on Oct 31, 2015 18:15:22 GMT -6
Your quotes basically comes close to what he recently said and for which I agree.
1) He states the reality that if people disagree, you are ostracized instead of considering it as a positive possibility to drive scientific progress. 2) He acknowledges that there is "global warming propaganda". There are some "technical facts", which I wouldn't dispute but there is an "intolerance to criticism" 3) The 2008 comment is somewhat choppy and don't know if it was cherry picked out of context. However, 2008 into 2015 means 7 years of possible scientific correction and quoting "1970" leaves out 45 years of exponential scientific growth . As an example in the recent interview:
During his interview with The Register Dyson noted shortcomings in climate models. “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger,” he said. “It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. I can't say if they'll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.”
Again, his statement of " “Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn't understand that.” which isn't contrary to your stated "I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated."
Your last quote is good," In a 2014 interview, he said that "What I'm convinced of is that we don't understand climate ... It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled."[2]"
|
|