Global Warming: For Experts Only

Slartibartfast said:
I recall Salby's disgrace and Curry has not done any science for years, wrote a book?. The problem is we need to find some consensus, we can all see how endless these threads are.

I have seen that the position of we don't want to burn all the fossils anyway works for both sides.

We might as well and we are, moving forward across the globe. The US is seen as a joke anyway and has no authority left. 95.6% of the world disagrees with the US and regard cleaning up as a priority and developing the tech to do so. That will have to be enough. California will lead the way in the US anyway.

Time to stop giving the naughty American special interests the attention they need to get paid.
More...
I hope by now you have had a chance to view Salby's important presentation at the University College. I want to point out some extremely important new work by Prof. Nir Shaviv and his colleagues presented here.
Anyone interested in the debate over Hanson's hypothesis owes it to themselves to be aware of the latest science.

In the push to politicize and popularize the idea that anthropomorphic CO2 emissions were going to cause a disastrous temperature excursion, Hansen fully embraced the change in terminology from "Anthropomorphic Global Warming" (AGW) to "Climate Change". Unfortunately this has led to obfuscation. The public has lost sight of the real issue, i.e., Hansen's Hypothesis. The debate has always been over what causes climate change, and not climate change itself, about which there is no question. As far as I'm concerned the question of whether we are in a warming cycle has been answered already. We are.

Please keep an open mind. When you for example mention Salby's "disgrace" please be aware that he, like virtually all other especially prominent scientists whose work calls into question Hansen's Hypothesis, has been subject to relentless ad hominem attacks unrelated to scientific criticism. Sometimes these efforts have resulted in politically motivated vendettas and even termination of research funding. Salby is not an Angel by any means, but his NSF budgetary transgressions were of the sort that would ordinarily have resulted in a reprimand only. Nevertheless he remains highly respected in the atmospheric physics community. He is the author of a seminal text in Atmospheric Physics and many papers in the peer reviewed literature. He is certainly no quack.

For those interested in how Salby was treated by NSF you may find this interesting: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/
 
Last edited:
piezoe said:
I hope by now you have had a chance to view Salby's important presentation at the University College. I want to point out some extremely important new work by Prof. Nir Shaviv and his colleagues presented here.
Anyone interested in the debate over Hanson's hypothesis owes it to themselves to be aware of the latest science.

In the push to politicize and popularize the idea that anthropomorphic CO2 emissions were going to cause a disastrous temperature excursion, Hansen fully embraced the change in terminology from "Anthropomorphic Global Warming" (AGW) to "Climate Change". Unfortunately this has led to obfuscation. The public has lost sight of the real issue, i.e., Hansen's Hypothesis. The debate has always been over what causes climate change, and not climate change itself, about which there is no question. As far as I'm concerned the question of whether we are in a warming cycle has been answered already. We are.

Please keep an open mind. When you for example mention Salby's "disgrace" please be aware that he, like virtually all other especially prominent scientists whose work calls into question Hansen's Hypothesis, has been subject to relentless ad hominem attacks unrelated to scientific criticism. Sometimes these efforts have resulted in politically motivated vendettas and even termination of research funding. Salby is not an Angel by any means, but his NSF budgetary transgressions were of the sort that would ordinarily have resulted in a reprimand only. Nevertheless he remains highly respected in the atmospheric physics community. He is the author of a seminal text in Atmospheric Physics and many papers in the peer reviewed literature. He is certainly no quack.
More...


^Think tank "social media outreach" operator in action. Salby? LOL. No he is NOT a highly respected climate scientist, he's a laughing stock.

Again with the ad-homing the argument. It's climate science, not the Hansen hypothesis.
 
The 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial

1. Fake experts
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. This has been found independently in a number of studies, including surveys of Earth scientists, analysis of public statements about climate change and analysis of peer-reviewed scientific papers. How might one cast doubt on the overwhelming scientific consensus? One technique is the use of fake experts.
We see this in online petitions such as the Global Warming Petition Project, which features more than 31,000 scientists claiming humans aren't disrupting our climate. How can there be 97% consensus when 31,000 scientists disagree? It turns out 99.9% of the petition's signatories aren't climate scientists. They include computer scientists, mechanical engineers and medical scientists but few climate scientists. The Global Warming Petition Project is fake experts in bulk.

2. Logical fallacies
The reason why there's a 97% consensus is because of the many lines of evidence that humans are causing global warming. Human fingerprints are being observed in heat escaping out to space, in the structure of the atmosphere and even in the changing seasons. Another denialist technique used to counter the weight of evidence is the logical fallacy.
The most common fallacious argument is that current climate change must be natural because climate has changed naturally in the past. This myth commits the logical fallacy of jumping to conclusions. It's like finding a dead body with a knife sticking out of its back, and arguing that the person must have died of natural causes because humans have died of natural causes in the past. The premise does not lead to the conclusion.

3. Impossible expectations
While many lines of evidence inform our understanding of climate change, another source of understanding are climate models. These are computer simulations built from the fundamental laws of physics, and they have made many accurate predictions since the 1970s. Climate models have successfully predicted the loss of Arctic sea ice, sea level rise and the geographic pattern of global warming. However, one technique used to cast doubt on climate models is the tactic of impossible expectations.
Some people argue that climate models are unreliable if they don't make perfect short-term predictions. However, a number of unpredictable influences such as ocean and solar cycles have short-term influences on climate. Over the long term, these effects average out, which is why climate models do so well at long-term predictions.

4. Cherry-picking
Signs of global warming have been observed all over our planet. Ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice every year. Global sea level is rising. Thousands of species are migrating toward cooler regions in response to warming. The ocean is building up four atomic bombs worth of heat every second. One way to avoid this overwhelming body of evidence is through the technique of cherry-picking.
For example, a persistent myth is that global warming stopped in recent decades. This is done by focusing on one slice of our climate system -- the surface temperature record. Further, it relies on cherry-picking short time periods. This ignores the long-term trend and more importantly, ignores the many warming indicators telling us that our planet continues to build up heat.

5. Conspiracy theory
The global surface temperature record is constructed by teams across the world, each compiling their own independent record. These different efforts, each using their own methods, paint a consistent picture of global warming. Climate science deniers reject this coherent evidence with conspiracy theories.
The thousands of scientists across the world who develop these temperature records are regularly accused of faking their data to inflate the global warming trend. Of course, critics produce no evidence for a global conspiracy. In fact, a number of investigations into the scientists' methodology has concluded that they conducted their research with robust integrity. How do the conspiracy theorists respond to each exoneration? By expanding their conspiracy theory to include the investigators!
 
piezoe said:
I hope by now you have had a chance to view Salby's important presentation at the University College. I want to point out some extremely important new work by Prof. Nir Shaviv and his colleagues presented here.
Anyone interested in the debate over Hanson's hypothesis owes it to themselves to be aware of the latest science.

In the push to politicize and popularize the idea that anthropomorphic CO2 emissions were going to cause a disastrous temperature excursion, Hansen fully embraced the change in terminology from "Anthropomorphic Global Warming" (AGW) to "Climate Change". Unfortunately this has led to obfuscation. The public has lost sight of the real issue, i.e., Hansen's Hypothesis. The debate has always been over what causes climate change, and not climate change itself, about which there is no question. As far as I'm concerned the question of whether we are in a warming cycle has been answered already. We are.

Please keep an open mind. When you for example mention Salby's "disgrace" please be aware that he, like virtually all other especially prominent scientists whose work calls into question Hansen's Hypothesis, has been subject to relentless ad hominem attacks unrelated to scientific criticism. Sometimes these efforts have resulted in politically motivated vendettas and even termination of research funding. Salby is not an Angel by any means, but his NSF budgetary transgressions were of the sort that would ordinarily have resulted in a reprimand only. Nevertheless he remains highly respected in the atmospheric physics community. He is the author of a seminal text in Atmospheric Physics and many papers in the peer reviewed literature. He is certainly no quack.
More...


Is CO2 a greenhouse gas or not.


co2_10000_years.gif
 
piezoe said:
What is the problem with this guy (FC)?
More...

You are doubting his global warming religion. You are a heretic. Facts and evidence don't matter to FC, he merely responds by re-posting the same nonsense over & over again hundreds of times and insulting others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top