Where Did Global Warming Go?

[Persia]

In the United States, the right wing of the Republican Party has managed to turn skepticism about man-made global warming into a requirement for electability, forming an unlikely triad with antiabortion and gun-rights beliefs. In findings from a Pew poll this spring, 75 percent of staunch conservatives, 63 percent of libertarians and 55 percent of Main Street Republicans said there was no solid evidence of global warming.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/sunday-review/whatever-happened-to-global-warming.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

[BackFromTheDead]

...and they are 100% wrong - surely, nobody doubts that Global Warming is happening?

The only recourse that the denialists have left to them are the causes...None of which, in their philosophy, has any connection to anything anthropological..

[Von Bismarck]

...and they are 100% wrong - surely, nobody doubts that Global Warming is happening?

The only recourse that the denialists have left to them are the causes...None of which, in their philosophy, has any connection to anything anthropological..

And i can with 100% say that your statement is wrong.

Science dosn't work that way.

And may i ask where all this about denialism have sudently come from??

Edited October 17, 2011 by BFB

[ninjadude]

scientific results don't come from opinion polls. Americans are pretty stupid.

[Dredimus]

scientific results don't come from opinion polls. Americans are pretty stupid.

Then here's some science for you.... ?? Global Warming ??

[Doug1029]

Then here's some science for you.... ?? Global Warming ??

OMG! You're citing Inhofe's press blog as a scientific source?

He's MY Senator and a raving lunatic. This is EXTREME right-wing denialism at its finest.

Doug

[Princess Serenity]

I ate it. :3

But seriously, I don't there was never a "global warming/cool." When it's just a cycle!

[Doug1029]

I ate it. :3

But seriously, I don't there was never a "global warming/cool." When it's just a cycle!

Natural cycles are part of what's going on, but the current warming is added on top of natural cycles.

In analyses of climate, that's exactly what we see. Values generated by CO2-related warming are actually added to those generated by natural functions. It's not just a nice turn of phrase. It is literally true.

But the larger question: does it matter whether the current disturbances are natural or man-made? Within our lifetimes we can't do much about them, whichever they are. And the consequences will be no less devastating whether Ma Nature made them, or we did.

All we can do now, is prepare as best we can for what's coming. Forget about stopping it. Let's just try to get as many people through the 30s and 40s as we can.

For the long run: we can reduce future impacts of human-caused warming. But do we want to? The environmental damage will have been done before we can reverse warming. Even if we can get the Arctic ice cap to reform, there's a good chance there will be no polar bears to benefit. And new sea ice will only be a barrier to commerce. Imagine Greenland with an interior seaway and a fishing industry dependent on it. Imagine that you can sail through the reopened Aquatania Channel between the Mediterranean and Red Sea, right over the top of Suez and Port Said.

It's going to be a new world, regardless of how we get there. Let's just make the transition as easy as possible.

Doug

[Dredimus]

OMG! You're citing Inhofe's press blog as a scientific source?

He's MY Senator and a raving lunatic. This is EXTREME right-wing denialism at its finest.

Doug

How about delving into the content instead of dismissing something off hand for no other reason than you dont like some one... how about reading the peer reviewed papers that are listed on the site... or does peer review mean nothing anymore?

[Guest]

How about delving into the content instead of dismissing something off hand for no other reason than you dont like some one... how about reading the peer reviewed papers that are listed on the site... or does peer review mean nothing anymore?

For what its worth - his paper has been dealt with and found wanting. Of course you may disagree - but you would be wise to give your reasons in detail.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=115

Having a paper published is just the first step. The details of that paper have to become generally accepted within the scientific community before they can be said to have meaningfully contributed to the discussion.

Br Cornelius

Edited October 19, 2011 by Guest

[Doug1029]

How about delving into the content instead of dismissing something off hand for no other reason than you dont like some one... how about reading the peer reviewed papers that are listed on the site... or does peer review mean nothing anymore?

I looked up YOUR refrence. If you didn't cite a reference, it's because you didn't use it.

BTW: I have published a couple peer reviewed articles. Take it from me: it ain't all it's cracked up to be. The real reviews come after publication when your material is out there for anybody who wants to read it.

Doug

[Wandering]

Yawn @ references to friend review being the priority.

[Swadwa]

Global Warming is not a climate change threat it is a political scam to create new taxes. For information on the real upcoming threat - Global Cooling - check out this website and learn the truth:

http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/

[MID]

In the United States, the right wing of the Republican Party has managed to turn skepticism about man-made global warming into a requirement for electability, forming an unlikely triad with antiabortion and gun-rights beliefs. In findings from a Pew poll this spring, 75 percent of staunch conservatives, 63 percent of libertarians and 55 percent of Main Street Republicans said there was no solid evidence of global warming.

No, they did no such thing.

These political classifications are ridiculous and meaningles to this topic. The fact is that the majority of rational people understand that there's no evidence of man made global warming, which is a concept that's been put forth for political purposes, and to foster power and control through the introduction of fear to the masses. It tends to work, as has been seen in any fallacious radical agenda put forth as fact throughout the ages. Look at Nazi Germany, and the Roman Catholic Church for examples of this paradigm in work.

That warming has taken place is not challenged. Nor shall the fairly obvious cooling trend be challenged when the zealots who follow Gore-ism realize that we have in fact been exhibiting global cooling trends for years. These are both natural cyclic things that have happened since the climate has existed!

the right wing of the Republican Party has managed to turn skepticism about man-made global warming into a requirement for electability

I don't hear anyone talking about this nonsense in the Republican camp so far. I think people's attention is on more important things that are real, like health care plans, taxes, and unemployment. Electability won't have anything to do with climate change. It'll be that one who embraces energy independence, lower taxes, economic growth and smaller government who is electable. Not the one who embraces Gore-ism.

[MID]

Global Warming is not a climate change threat it is a political scam to create new taxes. For information on the real upcoming threat - Global Cooling - check out this website and learn the truth:

I think your basic premise is reasonable here. I think I just went into some of that.

But we don't need to look at natural cyclic changes that we humans have no say in nor control over as "threats". Nature isn't responding to us, as it hasn't responded to the history of human activity. Indeed, it was doing it's warming and cooling thing long before there were any humans or humanoids here who were cognizant enough to rationalize strange theories about the plant's conscious action in regard to human/hominid action!

[Guest]

No, they did no such thing.

These political classifications are ridiculous and meaningles to this topic. The fact is that the majority of rational people understand that there's no evidence of man made global warming, which is a concept that's been put forth for political purposes, and to foster power and control through the introduction of fear to the masses. It tends to work, as has been seen in any fallacious radical agenda put forth as fact throughout the ages. Look at Nazi Germany, and the Roman Catholic Church for examples of this paradigm in work.

That warming has taken place is not challenged. Nor shall the fairly obvious cooling trend be challenged when the zealots who follow Gore-ism realize that we have in fact been exhibiting global cooling trends for years. These are both natural cyclic things that have happened since the climate has existed!

I don't hear anyone talking about this nonsense in the Republican camp so far. I think people's attention is on more important things that are real, like health care plans, taxes, and unemployment. Electability won't have anything to do with climate change. It'll be that one who embraces energy independence, lower taxes, economic growth and smaller government who is electable. Not the one who embraces Gore-ism.

True to form there. Always politics

You do make me laugh.

Br Cornelius

[MID]

True to form there. Always politics

You do make me laugh.

Br Cornelius

Yea,a nervous laugh.

I can hear it.

Edited October 21, 2011 by MID

[Guest]

Yea,a nervous laugh.

I can hear it.

:lol:

Br Cornelius

[Von Bismarck]

Having a paper published is just the first step. The details of that paper have to become generally accepted within the scientific community before they can be said to have meaningfully contributed to the discussion.

Br Cornelius

BTW: I have published a couple peer reviewed articles. Take it from me: it ain't all it's cracked up to be. The real reviews come after publication when your material is out there for anybody who wants to read it.

Doug

What's the point then?

Some people say, like Warndering, that it's a friend/family process.

You two say that it's after the paper have been through the peer-reviewed process and published that the real reviews comes. Which are entirely true.

But what the point for the peer-reviewed process?

Is it to stop junk science piling up? No, because junk science still gets through the peer-reviewed process.

[Guest]

What's the point then?

Some people say, like Warndering, that it's a friend/family process.

You two say that it's after the paper have been through the peer-reviewed process and published that the real reviews comes. Which are entirely true.

But what the point for the peer-reviewed process?

Is it to stop junk science piling up? No, because junk science still gets through the peer-reviewed process.

99% of all scientific papers ask a simple hypothesis which has a relatively simple yes or no answer. The peer review process is what captures those papers which have made incorrect assumption and applied incorrect methods. There is almost never an element of controversy about those papers and the peer review process is simply there to capture gross errors.

The remaining 1% are new research in uncharted fields. The peer reviewers can only hope to capture gross mistakes in methodology. The question of whether the fundamental hypothesis presented in the paper may take further years of testing and application to all possible situation before it can be said to be accepted. Once that has happened it can be said to tentatively have entered the cannon of accepted theories. As such the peer review is only the first gate in the long path to general acceptance. We ask the peers to simply make certain that the theory is at least possible within the greater cannon, that no obvious errors have been made.

The problem with many of the skeptical papers which are touted about, is that they deliberately target Journals which are inexpert in the field of climate science so that their obvious faults of thinking are not spotted. It come's down to "have the methods been applied properly", not whether the theory is physically possible within the existing cannon, or whether the new theory resolves satisfactorily an outstanding issue with the accepted cannon. It takes people who are expert in their field to answer such questions, so sending a paper to a totally unrelated Journal (as often happens) means that those experts never get to study the underlying theory before the article comes to press. Hence we have intense scrutiny of new papers once they are published and this is the first time that experts in their field are able to resolve those fundamental theoretical issues. IF a paper purports to be game changing in any meaningful way - it must go to the top Journals in their field in order to garner any credibility.

Is it any wonder that many skeptical papers are received with such "Skeptism" when they attempt to subvert this process. Repeatedly papers from top authors appear with glaring errors in methodology and fundamental errors in basic theory. The real big hitters in climate science skeptism have all but ceased publishing papers because they know that their concrete statements will all but ruin their careers - better to just mutter on the side lines.

As an example, where is the paper from Linzden on his Iris theory. he has had over a decade to publish one, the general theory has all but been trashed and yet he still drags it out at parties.

Br Cornelius

Edited October 21, 2011 by Guest

[Von Bismarck]

99% of all scientific papers ask a simple hypothesis which has a relatively simple yes or no answer. The peer review process is what captures those papers which have made incorrect assumption and applied incorrect methods. There is almost never an element of controversy about those papers and the peer review process is simply there to capture gross errors.

But yet agian we see example after example that they dont detect main errors or dont want too.

The problem with many of the skeptical papers which are touted about, is that they deliberately target Journals which are inexpert in the field of climate science so that their obvious faults of thinking are not spotted. Br Cornelius

Yes we see this but is not the general rule, far from. I can name many papers there have been sent to journals who are experts in the field, that have obvious mistakes.

I see the peer-reviewed procces(mostly in climate science) as extremly flawed.

[Guest]

But yet agian we see example after example that they dont detect main errors or dont want too.

Yes we see this but is not the general rule, far from. I can name many papers there have been sent to journals who are experts in the field, that have obvious mistakes.

I see the peer-reviewed procces(mostly in climate science) as extremly flawed.

One of the main issues with climate science as a disapline is that it is so massively complex, touching on a huge range of scientific fields, that it is very difficult for any two people (the peers) to be be adequately informed of all the issues. One of the main weaknesses as I see it is the application of statistics - which in itself requires a huge degree of expertise beyond the basic science, and many of the statistical principles are counter intuitive and very obscure in their application. I think you will find that this is the main area in which errors tend to creep in.

Peer review maybe extremely flawed - but it is the best system we have and science would be a lot poorer without it.

Br Cornelius

Edited October 21, 2011 by Guest

[Von Bismarck]

One of the main issues with climate science as a disapline is that it is so massively complex, touching on a huge range of scientific fields, that it is very difficult for any two people (the peers) to be be adequately informed of all the issues. One of the main weaknesses as I see it is the application of statistics - which in itself requires a huge degree of expertise beyond the basic science, and many of the statistical principles are counter intuitive and very obscure in their application. I think you will find that this is the main area in which errors tend to creep in.

Peer review maybe extremely flawed - but it is the best system we have and science would be a lot poorer without it.

Br Cornelius

True.

Of cause science would be alot poorer withour the process. Or would it really, think about it? Yes we would see a big increase in pseudoscience available to the public. But that doesn't mean that real science would take a hit, would it? It's up people to find out what's pseudoscience and what's not, and if you can't make that decision by yourself then see what the experts say.

But the peer-review process is good for one thing(IF ITS DONE PROPERLY) If a author would have made a silly mistake, which he acknowledge, then it can be changed before he gets public embrassement.

[Von Bismarck]

Of cause science would be alot poorer withour the process. Or would it really, think about it? Yes we would see a big increase in pseudoscience available to the public. But that doesn't mean that real science would take a hit, would it? It's up people to find out what's pseudoscience and what's not, and if you can't make that decision by yourself then see what the experts say.

The more I think about it, i realise maybe it would be a bad thing to remove the process. Maybe it just needs a furtherly make over.

We have to many people on this planet, that just see the word BA Degree, Master Degree or ph.D and say hey he must be right because he have a degree!

[Guest]

I know for a fact that I need the confidence that the peer review process engenders. I am a scientist - but my field is a very small part of the whole. If I read outside of my field (and even within it) then I absolutely need the confidence that an expert has already passed what I am reading.

None of us can be experts in everything.

The real issue at the moment is that the peer review process is overloaded as there is just to much science been published.

Br Cornelius

Edited October 21, 2011 by Guest