Quote:
|
Originally Posted by raveneye
Wrong again. Not a single author of any peer-reviewed paper cited in your link is a doubter of the fact that most or all of the recent warming was caused by anthropogenic activity. Plus not a single one of the denialist rants in that link was taken from a peer-reviewed article.
Do you actually know what peer review is?
|
I may be a lot of things and I know I am not an expert or a scientist nor do I pretend to be. But you guys are all over the place on this topic, perhaps you should debate with DC and decide what you folks agree on.. The more you guys write the more confusing you get. Are you now saying there is consensus in the scientific community that humans are the cause of global warming, while DC says there is not?
How about this:
Quote:
A member of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says he and many other scientists do not see global warming as a developing catastrophe and there is no smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for the warming that does occur.
John Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. He and thousands of others on the U.N. panel share half the Nobel Prize also awarded to Al Gore. But he says he cringes when he hears 100-year weather forecasts when it is incredibly difficult to accurately predict the weather five days from
now.
|
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.i...4521e89d653b79
I am really looking forward to your response about how ignorant I am or why Christy is not crdible.
Quote:
|
I know it must be hard to come to a full realization that you’re nothing but a buffoon in the eyes of Hansen or any other scientist.
|
More name calling. Part of the pattern.
Quote:
|
But put yourself in our shoes and think why: you have no scientific background or experience, in fact your mind is closed to the science on principle, and you’re too intellectually lazy and irresponsible to notice that the “science” you do quote, this time from Rush Limbaugh’s Man in Washington Marc Morano, is a deliberate and calculated cartoon distortion.
|
My credibility as a scientist is questioned even though we know and knew I am not one. Part of the pattern.
I am intellectually lazy and irresponsible, more personal attacks. Part of the pattern.
I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or read him but you say I I got a quote from him, making assumptions with no basis. Part of the pattern.
And another attempt to discredit Marano rather than addressing his point. Part of the pattern
Quote:
|
Perhaps if you think about that for a few seconds, you’ll see that you might as well hang a big flashing neon sign on your back that says “Attention scientists: please kick my scrawny ass from here to the moon and back.”
|
Heightened emotion. Part of the pattern.
Quote:
|
Research scientists are meticulous, hard-working souls who must continually question and critically evaluate every new method, mode of analysis, and piece of information from all angles before it eventually makes its way into print, if it ever does. They generally have zero patience for people who distort their work for political gain, over and over again, as you have in this thread, completely unapologetically.
|
And the claim that I distorted the work of scientist. Part of the pattern.
Quote:
|
But feel free to keep doing it. I enjoy pointing it out to any interested lurkers here. Court jesters do have a functional purpose, after all.
|
And the confirmation that you support the name calling used by Hansen. Part of the pattern
You guys are very predictable. This is turning into a lot of fun. Perhaps on day we can play poker, how about it?
{added}
Here is Christy's full article from the WSJ for those interested.
Quote:
My Nobel Moment
By JOHN R. CHRISTY
November 1, 2007; Page A19
I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my resume.
The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But that's another story.
[photo]
Large icebergs in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica. Winter sea ice around the continent set a record maximum last month.
Both halves of the award honor promoting the message that Earth's temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases. The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.
I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time.
There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century, if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)
It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.
Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"
I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.
Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice bridge linking Asia and North America.
One of the challenges in studying global climate is keeping a global perspective, especially when much of the research focuses on data gathered from spots around the globe. Often observations from one region get more attention than equally valid data from another.
The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started.
Then there is the challenge of translating global trends to local climate. For instance, hasn't global warming led to the five-year drought and fires in the U.S. Southwest?
Not necessarily.
There has been a drought, but it would be a stretch to link this drought to carbon dioxide. If you look at the 1,000-year climate record for the western U.S. you will see not five-year but 50-year-long droughts. The 12th and 13th centuries were particularly dry. The inconvenient truth is that the last century has been fairly benign in the American West. A return to the region's long-term "normal" climate would present huge challenges for urban planners.
Without a doubt, atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing due primarily to carbon-based energy production (with its undisputed benefits to humanity) and many people ardently believe we must "do something" about its alleged consequence, global warming. This might seem like a legitimate concern given the potential disasters that are announced almost daily, so I've looked at a couple of ways in which humans might reduce CO2 emissions and their impact on temperatures.
California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next decade. Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day.
Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions and could replace about 10% of the world's energy sources with non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 ?176 degrees Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent.
But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?
My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."
Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.
Mr. Christy is director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and a participant in the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html