Global Warming is Not a Crisis

[waitforufo]

As far as I know, solar activity is an input to the climate models, but the solar activity itself is not modeled — that's a job for people who study the sun. So if solar activity is less than what was modeled, you fix the input to it. It does not affect the validity of the model itself. You aren't predicting the inputs to the model.

It’s statements like the above that make people doubt climate science. How do you model the climate of the earth without including solar activity? Such a model is simplistic to the point of ridiculousness.

 

It's a matter of what the data actually says. You cannot legitimately conclude that there is no warming. The best fit from the numbers I posted is an increase of 0.14 ºC. No warming is a possibility, because it can't be statistically excluded. But neither can you exclude warming of about 0.28 ºC. Saying that the data show no warming either demonstrates a lack of scientific literacy (and incompetence if the person is trained as a scientist) or out-and-out deceit. There's really no other option.

No intelligent person would change the economy of the world based on the above statement. If no warming is a possibility then no action is required. Yeah, I know we are talking about just 15 years, but modeled projections were made 15 years ago and those projections were significantly missed. Defending that miss by saying that solar activity and ocean cycles were not considered only make climate scientists look stupid. You don’t cry wolf and not expect to be chastised when there is no wolf.

 

You'll also note that the signers are generally not climate scientists. That includes Rutan. They signed a harsh statement that includes very little science and a whole lot of logical fallacies that appeal to emotion, and outright lies.

Those that signed the WSJ statement are all people of great accomplishment in science and engineering. People respect their opinions. It doesn’t matter that they are not climate scientists. When you sign a statement as strong as the one they signed, people will understand that those that signed want their unvarnished opinion of climate science known. That opinion is strongly disparaging.

[swansont]

It’s statements like the above that make people doubt climate science. How do you model the climate of the earth without including solar activity? Such a model is simplistic to the point of ridiculousness.

 

No, that's not what I said. You include solar activity as an input to the model. You are not actually building a solar activity model to come up with the number, because you are not a solar physicist. So if the solar activity isn't what went into the model, you have to re-run the model.

 

No intelligent person would change the economy of the world based on the above statement. If no warming is a possibility then no action is required. Yeah, I know we are talking about just 15 years, but modeled projections were made 15 years ago and those projections were significantly missed. Defending that miss by saying that solar activity and ocean cycles were not considered only make climate scientists look stupid. You don’t cry wolf and not expect to be chastised when there is no wolf.

 

What miss? I keep reading this claim, but no actual explanation of the details. The "predictions" I've seen are model outputs based on assumed conditions. They are only valid if the conditions matched what was used in the model.

 

 

Those that signed the WSJ statement are all people of great accomplishment in science and engineering. People respect their opinions. It doesn’t matter that they are not climate scientists. When you sign a statement as strong as the one they signed, people will understand that those that signed want their unvarnished opinion of climate science known. That opinion is strongly disparaging.

 

Oh yes it does. I've seen enough people make claims outside their are of expertise not to trust them. There are plenty of engineers and scientists out there who think QM or relativity are wrong, but they aren't physicists, and they don't know what they are talking about. I've seen plenty of invalid physics commentary on the FTL neutrino issue who aren't familiar with how GPS works. Climate science isn't simple.

 

But the analysis of these particular claims is trivial. Simple reading of a graph and observing that their claims are based on fallacies, as I've already pointed out.

[Edtharan]

It’s statements like the above that make people doubt climate science. How do you model the climate of the earth without including solar activity? Such a model is simplistic to the point of ridiculousness.

You misunderstood what swansont said. What was said was that climate scientists don't try and predict the output from the sun, but they do look at what the output of the sun actually is and use that in their climate models.

 

No intelligent person would change the economy of the world based on the above statement. If no warming is a possibility then no action is required.

Think of this: You are crossing the street. You see a car heading towards you. The driver could steer away form you and not hit you, or they might not see you and thus hit you. What do you do? Do you jump off the road, or do you just stand there?

 

You would jump off the road wouldn't you.

 

It is not the possiblity that the car might not hit you that decides your actions, but the possiblity that the car might hit you that decides your actions.

 

Those that signed the WSJ statement are all people of great accomplishment in science and engineering. People respect their opinions. It doesn’t matter that they are not climate scientists. When you sign a statement as strong as the one they signed, people will understand that those that signed want their unvarnished opinion of climate science known. That opinion is strongly disparaging.

Argument of Authority is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). It doesn't matter what position they hold, or how illustrious their career is, if their arguments are not logical and not based on evidence, then they are not logical arguments.

 

Also, if their speciality is not in climate science, then they would not have the knowledge to make definitive statements about climate science.

 

For example: Would you allow Burt Rutan to direct brain surgery on you?

 

Probably not I am guessing. Why? Because Burt Rutan, although an amazing engineer, is not a brain surgeon and does not have the knowledge to direct brain surgery on anyone.

 

So, even though he might be a great engineer, this does not mean he understand climate science: He does not have the knowledge.

 

So, not onyl are non climate scientists not an authority on climate science, an argument from authority is not a rational argument anyway. This means your argument here fails on two points.

[waitforufo]

Swansont, Edtharan the farmer's almanac does a better job incorporating solar activity models into their predictions than anyone in the climate science community.

 

Edtharan, your analogy about jumping out of the way of a moving car is simply silly. What climate science is saying is that there are moving vehicles out there, moving vehicles are dangerous, and so vehicles should be banned.

 

With regard to the logical fallacy of the Argument of Authority, why doesn't that apply to "the consensus?" If 16 wrongs don’t make a right how may does? Also, if climate science can't convince people like Burt Rutan and the other signers of the WSJ statement who can it convince? BTW the WSJ statement went quite a bit further than just saying "we have doubts" and was a broad condemnation of the warmest climate science community. Every one of those that signed the WSJ statement stuck their neck out with this condemnation. They are calling out the warmest climate science community. If nothing else warmest want political action and this statement will impact their credibility and reduce their sway with the public.

[swansont]

Swansont, Edtharan the farmer's almanac does a better job incorporating solar activity models into their predictions than anyone in the climate science community.

 

That's a very deep and convincing piece of scientific analysis

 

Edtharan, your analogy about jumping out of the way of a moving car is simply silly. What climate science is saying is that there are moving vehicles out there, moving vehicles are dangerous, and so vehicles should be banned.

 

Over-reach much? Vehicles are dangerous and governments regulate both their use and design. Materials used, inclusion of airbags, seat belts, age at which you are permitted to operate on on public roads.

 

Nobody is calling for a ban on CO2.

 

With regard to the logical fallacy of the Argument of Authority, why doesn't that apply to "the consensus?" If 16 wrongs don’t make a right how may does? Also, if climate science can't convince people like Burt Rutan and the other signers of the WSJ statement who can it convince? BTW the WSJ statement went quite a bit further than just saying "we have doubts" and was a broad condemnation of the warmest climate science community. Every one of those that signed the WSJ statement stuck their neck out with this condemnation. They are calling out the warmest climate science community. If nothing else warmest want political action and this statement will impact their credibility and reduce their sway with the public.

 

Few of them have any professional credibility on the line. Substitute "evolution" into this line of reasoning and see where it takes you. We still have a lot of people who reject it. If evolution proponents can't convince people like (insert name) and the other signers of the creationism/ID statement who can it convince?

 

Or how about If tobacco opponents can't convince people like (insert name) and the other signers of the pro-tobacco statement who can it convince?

[waitforufo]

Another one..

 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-nonsense-gets-a-true-cold-shoulder/story-e6frezz0-1226258756363

[iNow]

Another one..

What is your intent? To provide evidence that there is an echo chamber effect in the climate change denial community? If so, good for you. You win a cookie. If your intent was to demonstrate that our conclusion about the human impact on climate is flawed or somehow false, well... then... sorry, but you fail... epically.

[swansont]

Another one..

 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-nonsense-gets-a-true-cold-shoulder/story-e6frezz0-1226258756363

 

Is this an attempt at proof-by-repeated-assertion?

[waitforufo]

What is my intent? I provided three articles; one from the US, one from the UK, and one from Australia. All of these articles shout that “global warming is not a crisis.” The first from the US condemns the entire climate science community and disparages the peer review process of climate science journals. Around the globe countries are abandoning subsidies for green energy. Nobody is buying this BS anymore. If you are looking for an echo chamber you won’t find it in the skeptic community. Climate science needs to accept the fact that they over played their hand. Nobody is buying into the fear they are peddling. The more they sell it, the more foolish they look.

[Ophiolite]

You think newspaper articles constitute sound scientific refutation of anthropogenic global warming? I mean, the Daily Mail for ****'s sake. Fox News with an English accent.

[swansont]

What is my intent? I provided three articles; one from the US, one from the UK, and one from Australia. All of these articles shout that “global warming is not a crisis.” The first from the US condemns the entire climate science community and disparages the peer review process of climate science journals. Around the globe countries are abandoning subsidies for green energy. Nobody is buying this BS anymore. If you are looking for an echo chamber you won’t find it in the skeptic community. Climate science needs to accept the fact that they over played their hand. Nobody is buying into the fear they are peddling. The more they sell it, the more foolish they look.

No, you provided a Wall Street Journal Op-ed and a crappy news article, and then a clone of that article. Science isn't decided on the editorial page of any newspaper, least of all the WSJ.

[IM Egdall]

Interesting letter to the editor in WSJ refuting their climate change editorial.

 

http://online.wsj.co...0727472662.html

 

I find it so frustrating that the experts in the field of climate science have to fight so hard to get the public to accept what the evidence is clearly telling them: global warming is real and human activity is a primary cause. Some of the compelling data is give in this thread. For a summary, read my scenceforums blog - It's Relative:

 

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/IME/

 

This is not just a discussion about which theory may be correct. It bears on global climate changes (which have already begun), for which the impact on human life (and other life forms) is disasterous. Can we risk the deaths - yes the deaths - of thousand, perhaps millions of humans by doing nothing now? I have tried to keep an open mind about this issue, but the more I read, the greater I feel the likelihood of global warming is way too high a risk to just ignore.

 

To me the question is -- why does the Wall Street Journal print editorial after editorial denying climate change? A big-oil connection? A Rupert Murdock insistance? Do the writers there really, truly believe what they are saying? To me, it degrades the reputation of the newspaper and makes me suspect the soundness of their other opinion pieces.

Edited February 2, 2012 by IM Egdall

[waitforufo]

 

Well if it is a crisis, no one thinks it is an important one.

[iNow]

Well if it is a crisis, no one thinks it is an important one.

This is not a valid conclusion one can form given the information you shared. "No one" is an awful lot of people. Actually, it's zero. Neither are accurate, much like your assertions that global warming is a big hoax is not accurate, either.

Edited February 3, 2012 by iNow

[IM Egdall]

 

Well if it is a crisis, no one thinks it is an important one.

 

 

The vast majority of climate scientists do! It is just that people in general here in the US anyway are not nearly as alarmed. If people are worked up enough and communicate this, then politicians respond. But people here generally aren't so worked up yet. THAT"S THE PROBLEM.

 

They either believe the mis-information put out by WSJ and other sources (a big oil priority?). OR they figure it'll happen some time in the distant future, so why worry now.

 

But the longer we produce more and more greenhouse gases, the more difficult it will be to mitigate and the more dire the consequences. And there may be some point of no return.

 

.o

Edited February 3, 2012 by IM Egdall

[iNow]

[Edtharan]

Edtharan, your analogy about jumping out of the way of a moving car is simply silly. What climate science is saying is that there are moving vehicles out there, moving vehicles are dangerous, and so vehicles should be banned.

No, that is what the climate change deniers are saying that climate scientists are saying.

 

Climate scientists are not saying that at all.

 

Climate scientists are saying that if you prevent energy from escaping the Earth, then that energy will build up in the Earth's climate systems. They then say, that if we want to prevent this, then we need to reduce putting the things into our atmosphere that block the energy escaping.

 

they know that these greenhouse gasses will slowly be reabsorbed within the systems of the Earth over time, or just break down into non greenhouse gasses. But, if we keep dumping these gasses into our atmosphere in an unregulated way, then we will put too much in (if not already) and we will get changes to the climate because of the extra energy trapped within it.

 

In terms of Cars. It is the difference with allowing people to drive anywhere they want, at any speed they want and have no consequences if they cause injury to someone else.

 

What climate scientists are wanting is road rules. They want to restrict the speed at which people drive and make them drive on the road in the correct lane because these actions will cause less harm than no regulation.

 

With regard to the logical fallacy of the Argument of Authority, why doesn't that apply to "the consensus?" If 16 wrongs don’t make a right how may does?

I don't quite understand this. Are you saying that even if people are wrong, then if there is a lot of them that are wrong, then we should just let them keep doing what they want?

 

Or are you trying to say that climate scientist are wrong?

 

If it is the second one, then it doesn't support your argument. In fact, it makes no sense about the argument at all.

 

If it is the first one, then what this means is that it doesn't matter who is wrong, or how many of them are wrong; if they are wrong, then they are wrong.

 

In that case, then it doesn't matter how many people signed that petition, if they are wrong, they are wrong.

 

Science clearly shows that if you increase the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, then there will be an increase in energy trapped within the climate systems. Whic, byt the way proves that WSJ is wrong.

 

Also, if climate science can't convince people like Burt Rutan and the other signers of the WSJ statement who can it convince? BTW the WSJ statement went quite a bit further than just saying "we have doubts" and was a broad condemnation of the warmest climate science community. Every one of those that signed the WSJ statement stuck their neck out with this condemnation. They are calling out the warmest climate science community. If nothing else warmest want political action and this statement will impact their credibility and reduce their sway with the public.

It doesn't matter what they put on the line for their beliefs. If they are wrong, then they are wrong.

 

It is clear cut with no doubts, if you prevent the escape of energy form the Earth (by any means), then there will be a build up of energy in the climate systems. Not only that, this same effect can be seen in many other systems.

 

If you have any system where there is an input of amount "X" and an output of amount "Y", then if X =Y the amount of "stuff" in the system will be stable, and, if X is less than Y, then the amount of stuff in the system will be reduced. However, if X is greater than Y, then the amount of stuff in the system will increase.

 

This is true regardless of whether the "Stuff" is money in a bank account, fluffy teddy bears, water in a dam, or energy in the climate systems.

 

This FACT proves them wrong, and it doesn't matter how many people are wrong; if they are wrong, they are wrong.

[iNow]

I don't quite understand this. Are you saying that even if people are wrong, then if there is a lot of them that are wrong, then we should just let them keep doing what they want?

 

Or are you trying to say that climate scientist are wrong?

 

If it is the second one, then it doesn't support your argument. In fact, it makes no sense about the argument at all.

 

If it is the first one, then what this means is that it doesn't matter who is wrong, or how many of them are wrong; if they are wrong, then they are wrong.

 

In that case, then it doesn't matter how many people signed that petition, if they are wrong, they are wrong.

 

Science clearly shows that if you increase the concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, then there will be an increase in energy trapped within the climate systems. Whic, byt the way proves that WSJ is wrong.

Try not to make too much sense out of it with a rational or reasonable set of standards, Edtharan. He is doing little more than conflating scientific consensus with the logical fallacy of argument from popularity. He's been told in this thread that the number of people who deny climate change is irrelevant to the truth of it, and does nothing to negate the merit and validity of the assertion that human activities (like digging metric tons of fossil fuels that have been buried in the ground for millions of years and burning them into the atmosphere) impact the earth's climate. When he was told that argument from popularity is a logical fallacy, his reply was to suggest that climate science ALSO rests on argument from popularity since we so often refer to the "scientific consensus," so it TOO must not be a valid argument. The only thing that would have made it better would be if he'd closed his post with, "So there! Nanner nanner boo boo, you're momma smells like doo doo!"

 

Clearly, to anyone who who is not a dumbass, it's plain to see the false equivalence in such a statement. One side of the quote unquote debate has a metric assload of evidence informing their position, nearly absolute acceptance among those who have studied this as their lifes work, and even more people who used to deny climate change but altered their position to one of acceptance after spending time studying the matter... Basically, one "side" has a lot of people who have said, "Yep, the evidence is overwhelming and I accept the conclusion as valid and true." The other "side" has a lot of people engaging in logical fallacies, presenting altered data, and closing their eyes, covering their ears, going "lalalalala, I can't hear you." Then after that very mature and intellectual exploration, they continue presenting their weak position by saying, "Since so many other non-experts agree with me that there is no problem, we're the ones who are correct." They are not relying on evidence. They are appealing to popularity, and as was pointed out above it is not the popularity of a position that dictates its truth.

 

 

And now, I'll share this for those fence sitters out there who remain undecided:

 

Edited February 5, 2012 by iNow

[waitforufo]

Think of this: You are crossing the street. You see a car heading towards you. The driver could steer away from you and not hit you, or they might not see you and thus hit you. What do you do? Do you jump off the road, or do you just stand there?

You would jump off the road wouldn't you.

 

Edtharan, my reply was in reply to your reference to the precautionary principle in the above quote. Your analogy above implies that with just a little adjustment in human behavior we can change the climate back to something you consider safer or better. My reply was to point out that warmists like you want to drastically change to our economy, government, and liberty in response to climate variation. All changed dramatically for the worse. For your analogy above to be properly aligned with the goals of warmists moving vehicles would have to be banned for safety sake. Or are you suggesting that climate variation can be modified by simply insulating the power sockets in my home?

 

 

Argument of Authority is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). It doesn't matter what position they hold, or how illustrious their career is, if their arguments are not logical and not based on evidence, then they are not logical arguments.

 

To your "Argument of Authority is a logical fallacy" comment above I was trying to point out that it is the warmists that constantly are guilty of making this logical fallacy. Warmists are constantly pointing out that they have a consensus. As if this consensus proves them right. The WSJ op-ed shows the lengths to which warmists will go to preserve their precious consensus; corruption of the peer review process, blacklisting, and Lysenkoism.

 

Try not to make too much sense out of it with a rational or reasonable set of standards, Edtharan. He is doing little more than conflating scientific consensus with the logical fallacy of argument from popularity. He's been told in this thread that the number of people who deny climate change is irrelevant to the truth of it, and does nothing to negate the merit and validity of the assertion that human activities (like digging metric tons of fossil fuels that have been buried in the ground for millions of years and burning them into the atmosphere) impact the earth's climate. When he was told that argument from popularity is a logical fallacy, his reply was to suggest that climate science ALSO rests on argument from popularity since we so often refer to the "scientific consensus," so it TOO must not be a valid argument. The only thing that would have made it better would be if he'd closed his post with, "So there! Nanner nanner boo boo, you're momma smells like doo doo!"

 

Clearly, to anyone who who is not a dumbass, it's plain to see the false equivalence in such a statement. One side of the quote unquote debate has a metric assload of evidence informing their position, nearly absolute acceptance among those who have studied this as their lifes work, and even more people who used to deny climate change but altered their position to one of acceptance after spending time studying the matter... Basically, one "side" has a lot of people who have said, "Yep, the evidence is overwhelming and I accept the conclusion as valid and true." The other "side" has a lot of people engaging in logical fallacies, presenting altered data, and closing their eyes, covering their ears, going "lalalalala, I can't hear you." Then after that very mature and intellectual exploration, they continue presenting their weak position by saying, "Since so many other non-experts agree with me that there is no problem, we're the ones who are correct." They are not relying on evidence. They are appealing to popularity, and as was pointed out above it is not the popularity of a position that dictates its truth.

 

 

And now, I'll share this for those fence sitters out there who remain undecided:

 

 

Perhaps those in the climate science community should study the business concept of sunk costs. No matter how aggressively they polish there "assload of evidence", in the end it will still just be an assload.

[iNow]

Gosh. Guess you burned me there. Golly. Don't I feel silly.

[swansont]

Perhaps those in the climate science community should study the business concept of sunk costs. No matter how aggressively they polish there "assload of evidence", in the end it will still just be an assload.

 

Interesting how all of the objections you have presented or linked to don't seem to contain any actual valid scientific claims.

[dimreepr]

Edtharan, my reply was in reply to your reference to the precautionary principle in the above quote. Your analogy above implies that with just a little adjustment in human behavior we can change the climate back to something you consider safer or better. My reply was to point out that warmists like you want to drastically change to our economy, government, and liberty in response to climate variation. All changed dramatically for the worse. For your analogy above to be properly aligned with the goals of warmists moving vehicles would have to be banned for safety sake. Or are you suggesting that climate variation can be modified by simply insulating the power sockets in my home?

 

 

 

 

To your "Argument of Authority is a logical fallacy" comment above I was trying to point out that it is the warmists that constantly are guilty of making this logical fallacy. Warmists are constantly pointing out that they have a consensus. As if this consensus proves them right. The WSJ op-ed shows the lengths to which warmists will go to preserve their precious consensus; corruption of the peer review process, blacklisting, and Lysenkoism.

 

 

 

Perhaps those in the climate science community should study the business concept of sunk costs. No matter how aggressively they polish there "assload of evidence", in the end it will still just be an assload.

 

 

Burying your head in the sand doesn’t make the science invalid; it just makes your argument invalid.

 

 

[JohnB]

Jeez, take a short break.....

 

The BS and logical fallacies have been flying thick and fast haven't they?

 

IM Egdall,

 

I did a google search and found a link which says Ivar Giaever is involved with the Heartland Institute and Cato Institute. These organizations are reportedly funded by Exxon Mobil, Phillip Morris, and the American Petroleum Insititute (amongst others). To me, this makes his statements denying human-induced global warning suspect.

 

Third hand hearsay "evidence"? How pathetic, such junk wouldn't get past the first sentence in a court of law, but is blindly accepted as gospel by a scientist? Look up "Guilt by Association", "Poisoning the Well" and "Ad Hominem" logical fallacies. What matters is the evidence presented, not who funds it or who it might be biased by. If your standard of evidence is so low that if a website "says" someone is "involved with" a group who are "reportedly" something or other is good enough for you, then turn in any degree you have because that standard is just bullshit. I don't know what you're doing, but practicing science sure as hell won't be part of it.

 

As to the WSJ thing, I notice the old canard "But they aren't climate scientists" has been trotted out. Of all the insipid and stupid arguments. This joke of an argument follows the most insane logic I've ever seen. By analogy; Swansont is a physicist. If swansont says that 1+1=3 the only people qualified to disagree are other physicists. Give me a break. Burt Rutan is an engineer with years of practical experience in extracting useful information from mountains of data. This experience gives him the knowledge of what methods do give reliable results and which methods don't.

 

I've never understood how intelligent people can sit at a keyboard and claim that mathematics and statistics somehow "work differently" in climate science. FFS we can barely define what is or is not a "Climate Scientist". Nor does someone have to have published in "Climate Science" to comment on said "science". The hockey stick wasn't broken because well funded deniers fought it, it got broken because it didn't match the historical records and was sh*t statistics. Or are people going to argue that statisticians aren't competent to comment on statistical methods used in climate science? Bullsh*t!

 

Now i really hate to break it to the warmers around here, but the temps have been doing bugger all for about 16 years. I really don't care whether you like it or not, that's just the fact.

 

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

 

There is the tiniest bit of positive trend there, but so close to zero as to not worth talking about. This is of course different from the conclusion swansont came to using NOAA data but this is unsurprising. NOAA data is heavily "adjusted" as the following graph shows;

 

 

Basically an MMTS that sits in the same place for 50 years and records exactly the same temperature on say March 1 each year from 1950 -2000 will now show a warming trend of .5 degrees for the period. Instant .1 degree/decade warming trend. I prefer the MSU to preadjusted pap.

 

As people might have guessed, I'm tired of being nice and I'm tired of seeing absolute crap from morons being quoted as gospel. And I'm especially tired of being misrepresented as to my thoughts and reasons behind those thoughts.

 

I see swansont linked to a Forbes article by Peter Gleick. Really? This mans opinion is worth exactly what? This is the Peter Gleick who doesn't need to read a book before writing an indepth review of it. And when called on this fact goes complaining all over the net as to how nasty those mean "deniers" are. A contemptable oxygen thief. A liar and a cheat.

 

iNow, as for Phil Plait over at Bad Astronomy, he might be an astronomer but is clueless concerning climate. Anybody who claims that "the Little Ice Age a cold period during the 17th and 18th centuries was not a global effect; it only affected Europe" is either a dolt or wilfully blind as the evidence says otherwise. Here's the challenge, instead of letting realclimate and SkS do your thinking for you, how about reading something for a change? This link will take you to the work of 1049 different scientists, from 600 research institutions in 44 nations that shows both the MWP and LIA were in fact global.

 

So I strongly suggest some people start actually looking at the evidence rather than declaring it doesn't exist.

 

Oh, and swansont, would you care to show where there is some evidence in this article you linked to? Considering he opens with;

The Wall Street Journal has published one of the most offensive, untruthful, twisted reviews of what scientists think of climate change; the WSJ Lies about the facts and twists the story to accommodate the needs of head-in-the-sand industrialists and 1%ers

 

Emphasis mine. It seems very long on rhetoric and very short on facts. (But maybe I just missed them)

 

Also I'm willing to go for the showdown. iNow, let's see some of this "metric assload" of evidence you say you have. Start a new thread using your first 5 points and we'll take it from there. I dare you, put up or shut up. All comments to be fully and correctly referenced.

 

A final point. I know that Kevin "Weather is climate when I want it to be" Trenberth and others have responded to the WSJ article arguing the "who do you get your surgical advice from?" line. My answer is simple, a doctor with a track record of proven success, not one who wins "Surgical Hero" computer games when playing with his mates.

Edited February 6, 2012 by JohnB

[iNow]

iNow, let's see some of this "metric assload" of evidence you say you have. Start a new thread using your first 5 points and we'll take it from there. I dare you, put up or shut up.

I don't have to. The entire climate science community has done this for me for the past several decades. It's like you're asking me to open a thread to give you my top five points for why I think massive objects attract each other or that magnetic fields are coupled with electric currents.

 

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

 

Maybe a better example is you asking me to support plate tectonics or relativity.

[swansont]

As to the WSJ thing, I notice the old canard "But they aren't climate scientists" has been trotted out. Of all the insipid and stupid arguments. This joke of an argument follows the most insane logic I've ever seen. By analogy; Swansont is a physicist. If swansont says that 1+1=3 the only people qualified to disagree are other physicists. Give me a break. Burt Rutan is an engineer with years of practical experience in extracting useful information from mountains of data. This experience gives him the knowledge of what methods do give reliable results and which methods don't.

 

Burt Rutan is incompetent at extracting information from data if he signed off on a statement that there has been no warming for the last 10+ years.

 

1+1=3 is not a subtle error. Poor analogy. Permit me to tell a story that is more apropos. Recently there was the experiment that came to the possible conclusion that neutrinos traveled faster than light. Under the assumption that relativity is correct, a number of people have weighed in on possible sources of error, including one scientist who claimed it was a timing error from using GPS — that they didn't account for the relativistic motion of the satellites, and this accounted for the timing error. It was widely repeated, and not just by journalists. Science bloggers did so, too. Should we believe them? They're scientists, after all.

 

No, we shouldn't: They may be scientists, but they are unfamiliar with the details of GPS, and didn't think the problem through — if this was truly a source of error, it would limit the geolocation capability of GPS to >20 meters, if there were no other errors at all, and since we can do better than this it can't possibly be true. The fact is that GPS clocks are run at a different rate than ground clocks, in order to compensate for the relativistic effects. But many people — non experts — didn't know this, and the argument sounded plausible. They "signed off" on the solution, even though this wasn't a particularly subtle error.

 

Which is why I will not accept the view of non-experts as having any validity. I've certainly had the experience of thinking I understood something, only to find that I don't, because there is a layer of more subtle science beneath it. What is surprising to me is that there seem to be a lot of people who haven't had this experience, or perhaps think it doesn't apply in this case.