Yet again, Global Warming...

[Cimber]

Yes, thank you Cimber for suggesting the 'pm'ing to start.

And also, thank you for helping push this discussion into more of a scientific discussion, instead of a back and forth match between unsubstantiated opinions.

You're welcome. My criticism on the way in which scientific debate has occurred was founded on the hope that posters would actually 'gain' something out of the discussion, instead of engaging in useless bickering over and over again, that is all to common on this forum.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Cimber

[Lt_Ripley]

If they can do this, what makes people think they don't control the funding of scientists 'for' ACGW?

- because there is no profit to be made ??

Probably from the petition of 37,000 different scientists voting against ACGW.

link ?

[Wickian]

It's actually 31,000.

[Moon Monkey]

Not sure where you got that number, but you're wrong. There's tens of thousands of scientists that openly dispute the AGW theory, and who knows how many more that can't speak up in fear of being fired over it.

Exactly right. It's my duty as a member of the scientific community to engage laypeople in scholarly debate. I have to do it on a daily basis at my current research university.

If you have a problem with scientists who criticize how those outside the scientific community express their opinions on science then I suggest you tell professors and fellow graduate students the same thing. They also do it every day on the university level. It's how scientific education is done.

A few people at the front of the field decide the direction and thousands of other scientists and graduate students follow, thats how scientific education is done. As we said in the last thread you try being a climatologist who wants to publish research going against 97 % of other climatologists. It seems that they found that CO2 rose steeply over the period of industrialisation and have attempted to fit their theories to this data. Well that doesn't tally with any of the 'models' for the period of cooling from 1945-1970, neither do any of the other currently proposed man-made reasons.

I am sure we would all agree that man must have an affect on the natural world, even if it is simply the exponential increase in numbers seen over the last 150 years and the feeding and breathing, but no one knows what is causing the global temperature changes with any certainty. I am sure that even the 97% of climatologists could be broken down further when asked what is the main man-made contributing factor and how the different man made contributions interact, we wouldn't want to change the wrong thing as that could make the situation worse.

Many people have provided these links to scientific evidence many times in the past. I remember in one similar thread about 18 months ago downloading a load of Vladivostock ice-core data and running my own programs showing the correlation of global temperature and solar activity / lagged oceanic CO2 production and comparing it with population/temperature correlation, it makes no difference to most people on these threads and I for one am not going to go through it all again. A search function is available.

As a side note, instead of investing hundreds of billions in banks why not spend our way out of recession by building nuclear power stations and electric cars if fossil fuel burning is the problem (it makes sense even if it is just to restrict our reliance of foriegn energy)? Surely the government has the best brains in the country working for them and if they don't see a problem why scare the rest of us, instead they are building some crappy wind-farms and alongside them coal fired power stations for when the wind don't blow and investing billions revamping their offices on the banks of the Thames.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Cimber]

A few people at the front of the field decide the direction and thousands of other scientists and graduate students follow, thats how scientific education is done. As we said in the last thread you try being a climatologist who wants to publish research going against 97 % of other climatologists.

Are you going to bother to provide some evidence for this? My future work as a graduate will never be dictated. My cancer research was not 'chosen' for me. Some aspects of my work in cancer research, is considered to be 'against the mainstream', yet that doesn't hinder its usefulness and the involvement of my superiors. Those involved in the field of Climatology are no different. You're telling scientists, those involved within the scientific community, how their careers are run, when you have no part in said community?

If you want to bring up scientists who could be considered 'rebels' I can bring a perfect example from my field, Stephen J. Gould. Disconnected, for the the most part, and openly criticized most of what mainstream evolutionary thought had said, but was also smart enough to recognize that the foundation of their work was essentially correct. Yet, he continued to be published. He had no relation to climatology, that I know of, but he is a perfect example of an extreme scientist being published which, yet again, ruins your argument that scientists have to agree with the 'mainstream' view.

If you are commenting on how scientific education is done, I suggest you at least set foot in a university lecture. Large research universities (not sure about smaller colleges) have discussion, debate, laboratory, and opportunities for undergrads, graduates, and post grads to research within their interests.

Modern research labs are run the same way. You will have the more seasoned vets doing research while you have the 'newbies' help you out on specific tasks until they get acquainted with the laboratory setting.

Many people have provided these links to scientific evidence many times in the past. I remember in one similar thread about 18 months ago downloading a load of Vladivostock ice-core data and running my own programs showing the correlation of global temperature and solar activity / lagged oceanic CO2 production and comparing it with population/temperature correlation, it makes no difference to most people on these threads and I for one am not going to go through it all again. A search function is available.

If you want to engage in meaningful debate, then a poster should have citations available. It shows laziness. Don't create a new discussion and be involved in it, then tell people to use the search function and try to find said citations. Whats the purpose of even creating new threads on the issue then? That's one of the main reasons threads like these fall apart. Because they are continually restarted and posts get watered down over and over again. No discussion is even given on these citations, either.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Cimber

[Moon Monkey]

Are you going to bother to provide some evidence for this? My future work as a graduate will never be dictated. My cancer research was not 'chosen' for me. Some aspects of my work in cancer research, is considered to be 'against the mainstream', yet that doesn't hinder its usefulness and the involvement of my superiors. Those involved in the field of Climatology are no different. You're telling scientists, those involved within the scientific community, how their careers are run, when you have no part in said community?

Your future work will be dictated or you will not get research grants, cash isn't just handed out willy-nilly believe me and who do you think okeys research proposals ? Ah, students..bless them. Anyway other than my day job in a leading research centre my part in said community as a respected reviewer for a number of major journals in my field means I have quite a say in what goes in them, fortunately in my field things are either proven right or wrong or to within statistical bounds one way or the other but you still see research directions led from the front. Completely new research directions come along once a decade or so and as I said usually from a field leader and his team.

If you want to bring up scientists who could be considered 'rebels' I can bring a perfect example from my field, Stephen J. Gould. Disconnected, for the the most part, and openly criticized most of what mainstream evolutionary thought had said, but was also smart enough to recognize that the foundation of their work was essentially correct. Yet, he continued to be published. He had no relation to climatology, that I know of, but he is a perfect example of an extreme scientist being published which, yet again, ruins your argument that scientists have to agree with the 'mainstream' view.

Part of the 3% ? Already established before he decided to swim against the tide ? EDIT: wiki'd the guy, hardly disconnected IMO but whatever as I don't want to argue the point.

If you are commenting on how scientific education is done, I suggest you at least set foot in a university lecture. Large research universities (not sure about smaller colleges) have discussion, debate, laboratory, and opportunities for undergrads, graduates, and post grads to research within their interests.

Thanks for that information although I am fully aware how one of europes biggest and best universities works from being part of it for almost 20 years from undergrad through to my current position.

Modern research labs are run the same way. You will have the more seasoned vets doing research while you have the 'newbies' help you out on specific tasks until they get acquainted with the laboratory setting.

Again, thanks for that.

If you want to engage in meaningful debate, then a poster should have citations available. It shows laziness. Don't create a new discussion and be involved in it, then tell people to use the search function and try to find said citations. Whats the purpose of even creating new threads on the issue then? That's one of the main reasons threads like these fall apart. Because they are continually restarted and posts get watered down over and over again. No discussion is even given on these citations, either.

I didn't create the thread, I simply pointed out that some of us have been here, seen it, heard it and posted the links many times before. If the OPs searched they would find hundreds of such threads so unless something new has happened since the last such thread there is little to add without repetition. Personally I think it is lazier to simply start a new thread on an old subject rather than do a quick search to find an existing thread on the same topic and, once you have established that your point or question has not been addressed before, post it there.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Resonance]

Your future work will be dictated or you will not get research grants, cash isn't just handed out willy-nilly believe me and who do you think okeys research proposals ? Ah, students..bless them. Anyway other than my day job in a leading research centre my part in said community as a respected reviewer for a number of major journals in my field means I have quite a say in what goes in them, fortunately in my field things are either proven right or wrong or to within statistical bounds one way or the other but you still see research directions led from the front. Completely new research directions come along once a decade or so and as I said usually from a field leader and his team.

Part of the 3% ? Already established before he decided to swim against the tide ? EDIT: wiki'd the guy, hardly disconnected IMO but whatever as I don't want to argue the point.

Thanks for that information although I am fully aware how one of europes biggest and best universities works from being part of it for almost 20 years from undergrad through to my current position.

Again, thanks for that.

I didn't create the thread, I simply pointed out that some of us have been here, seen it, heard it and posted the links many times before. If the OPs searched they would find hundreds of such threads so unless something new has happened since the last such thread there is little to add without repetition. Personally I think it is lazier to simply start a new thread on an old subject rather than do a quick search to find an existing thread on the same topic and, once you have established that your point or question has not been addressed before, post it there.

Well Cimber apparently is being less of a help now.. You can stop accusing people of not being educated in this field, and actually start contributing to the discussion.... CIMBER...

[Cimber]

Your future work will be dictated or you will not get research grants, cash isn't just handed out willy-nilly believe me and who do you think okeys research proposals ?

I know full well how grants work and who gets them. Because grants are written doesn't mean research is as narrow and static as you make it seem to be. If that were the case, science wouldn't be making the leaps and bounds it has been in just this last decade alone. Graduate students and upper level undergrads involved in research wouldn't be in their respective fields, because they, believe it or not, are smart enough to know when they are being held back. You are talking about the most intelligent young people on the planet here. My university holds several events every semester and other such discussions and committees to oversee that graduates and undergrads are not being limited in their current and future research interests.

Well Cimber apparently is being less of a help now.. You can stop accusing people of not being educated in this field, and actually start contributing to the discussion.... CIMBER...

Moon Monkey commented on my statement regarding how scientific education was done. I responded to it. Would you prefer me to just sit back and not respond to his statements? Where did I say anyone was uneducated in the single post between where you said 'thank you' and your most recent one? You're putting words in my mouth and I suggest you not do that.

I don't comment on the field of climatology because of the way I was scientifically educated. That is, I know the fields in which I am an expert in and the fields that I know very little about. Climatology is one of those fields I have not had the pleasure of delving to deeply into during my scholastic endeavors. Any information I contribute on the subject would be on par with the few classes I took to receive core science credits in my undergraduacy.

But what I do know about, is how to correctly debate and discuss scientific issues, and I have every right to comment on it since this is a science discussion forum. I wrote papers and participated in several discussion sections for the undergraduates in various scientific and philosophy fields. My whole rationale for participating in this Global Warming thread is as follows...

1. Arguments regarding man made Global Warming from posters on both sides are weak.

2. People are not getting anything out of the discussion

3. People are not learning from others

4. People are not bringing scholarly citation and are not providing any sort of commentary on said citations

The whole reason you provide scientific evidence and present your discussion on that evidence is so you learn what it exactly is that these researchers are trying to say. You reconize the researchers faults (because every paper has faults) and their strengths. You read the opponents research and learn their strengths and faults as well.

This is how discussions and scientific debate is done in institutions of higher learning. If you don't want to follow it, that's your choice. Just don't expect to learn anything.

I also don't mean for my posts to sound antagonistic. I am simply giving advice from my science background to help those of you who are not involved in the community to get the most out of your discussion. It seems as though it has fallen on deaf ears, however, so carry on with the same sort of thing that has went on in this forum for years and let this same topic come back up with the same posters using the same rhetoric over and over again, where nothing is accomplished.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Cimber

[Resonance]

I know full well how grants work and who gets them. Because grants are written doesn't mean research is as narrow and static as you make it seem to be. If that were the case, science wouldn't be making the leaps and bounds it has been in just this last decade alone. Graduate students and upper level undergrads involved in research wouldn't be in their respective fields, because they, believe it or not, are smart enough to know when they are being held back. You are talking about the most intelligent young people on the planet here. My university holds several events every semester and other such discussions and committees to oversee that graduates and undergrads are not being limited in their current and future research interests.

Moon Monkey commented on my statement regarding how scientific education was done. I responded to it. Would you prefer me to just sit back and not respond to his statements? Where did I say anyone was uneducated in the single post between where you said 'thank you' and your most recent one? You're putting words in my mouth and I suggest you not do that.

I don't comment on the field of climatology because of the way I was scientifically educated. That is, I know the fields in which I am an expert in and the fields that I know very little about. Climatology is one of those fields I have not had the pleasure of delving to deeply into during my scholastic endeavors. Any information I contribute on the subject would be on par with the few classes I took to receive core science credits in my undergraduacy.

But what I do know about, is how to correctly debate and discuss scientific issues, and I have every right to comment on it since this is a science discussion forum. I wrote papers and participated in several discussion sections for the undergraduates in various scientific and philosophy fields. My whole rationale for participating in this Global Warming thread is as follows...

1. Arguments regarding man made Global Warming from posters on both sides are weak.

2. People are not getting anything out of the discussion

3. People are not learning from others

4. People are not bringing scholarly citation and are not providing any sort of commentary on said citations

The whole reason you provide scientific evidence and present your discussion on that evidence is so you learn what it exactly is that these researchers are trying to say. You reconize the researchers faults (because every paper has faults) and their strengths. You read the opponents research and learn their strengths and faults as well.

This is how discussions and scientific debate is done in institutions of higher learning. If you don't want to follow it, that's your choice. Just don't expect to learn anything.

I know all to well how to discuss a topic. Scholarly citation 'is' helpful, but not exactly needed unless asked for. When it is asked for, it should be produced. End of story. No trying to assume that someone doesn't know what they're talking about, just because they have no citation.

As for what i meant by you steering this topic toward it's end was, you stating "I suggest you at least set foot in a university lecture"... is completely un-needed.

Assuming someone hasn't been educated on 'anything' is not what should be projected in this topic. We are trying to 'discuss', not discussing how to discuss.

[Cimber]

I know all to well how to discuss a topic. Scholarly citation 'is' helpful, but not exactly needed unless asked for. When it is asked for, it should be produced. End of story. No trying to assume that someone doesn't know what they're talking about, just because they have no citation.

As for what i meant by you steering this topic toward it's end was, you stating "I suggest you at least set foot in a university lecture"... is completely un-needed.

Assuming someone hasn't been educated on 'anything' is not what should be projected in this topic. We are trying to 'discuss', not discussing how to discuss.

Scholarly citation is everything in the realm of science. Any other sort of citation is meaningless. Try to cite wikipedia or globalwarminghoax.com in an undergraduate classroom and see what happens.

You may be discussing the topic, but Moon Monkey was responding to my post regarding scientific education. Would you prefer that I had ignored his post entirely, simply because it wasn't about Global Warming?

If you wish to discuss this with me further then please PM me. I offered that to Michelle earlier. That went to every poster after her as well. Instead, people continue to respond via posts instead of PMs. If you don't want to discuss it in the thread, why comment on the matter further why not pm me as Michelle did?

Edited February 17, 2009 by Cimber

[Resonance]

Scholarly citation is everything in the realm of science. Any other sort of citation is meaningless. Try to cite wikipedia or globalwarminghoax.com in an undergraduate classroom and see what happens.

You may be discussing the topic, but Moon Monkey was responding to my post regarding scientific education. Would you prefer that I had ignored his post entirely, simply because it wasn't about Global Warming?

No, i would not.

I understand that.

And furthermore, who cited globalwarminhoax.com???? If so, they're just stupid. lol.

[Cimber]

No, i would not.

I understand that.

And furthermore, who cited globalwarminhoax.com???? If so, they're just stupid. lol.

I edited my post above to include more information. I'll post it here as well in case you missed it.

If you wish to continue to have this discussion with me, I am more than willing to speak with you via pms. I don't want to derail the thread. I only continue to respond in threads to people who respond to me in threads, so guests see that I don't simply ignore people's comments.

No one cited globalwarminghoax.com specifically, but I have seen others link similar biased websites in the past. I was using that as an example of a non-scholarly source.

[Resonance]

I edited my post above to include more information. I'll post it here as well in case you missed it.

If you wish to continue to have this discussion with me, I am more than willing to speak with you via pms. I don't want to derail the thread. I only continue to respond in threads to people who respond to me in threads, so guests see that I don't simply ignore people's comments.

No one cited globalwarminghoax.com specifically, but I have seen others link similar biased websites in the past. I was using that as an example of a non-scholarly source.

I understand.

Thank you.

I would like to discuss some things further with you, but haven't the time at the moment.

When i do, i will PM you.

Thank you again.

[Cimber]

I understand.

Thank you.

I would like to discuss some things further with you, but haven't the time at the moment.

When i do, i will PM you.

Thank you again.

Thank you for your interest and conviction towards useful scientific discussion. I look forward to your messages whenever you have time to send them. Have a great day.

And Moon Monkey if you wish to respond to my comments, please do so in a pm so we don't derail the topic. Thanks for your understanding.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Cimber

[Moon Monkey]

I know full well how grants work and who gets them. Because grants are written doesn't mean research is as narrow and static as you make it seem to be. If that were the case, science wouldn't be making the leaps and bounds it has been in just this last decade alone. Graduate students and upper level undergrads involved in research wouldn't be in their respective fields, because they, believe it or not, are smart enough to know when they are being held back. You are talking about the most intelligent young people on the planet here. My university holds several events every semester and other such discussions and committees to oversee that graduates and undergrads are not being limited in their current and future research interests.

I am not saying anyone is being held back, I am saying they are directed. If something new comes up during research, great, however a new research direction with no guarantees at all will not get a grant, proposals must have some basis in a proven or accepted background. Do you think that if a new, super-intelligent climatologist proposed to investigate that man has no effect on global climate change he would recieve a grant ? The problem is neither argument is currently conclusive however considering the 97% figure you would think those 'great leaps and bounds' of which you speak would have managed to explain the data as man-made, how exactly man is doing it and what needs to be done to reverse it, the 3% have much less chance of showing it is not.

If you really want a post-graduate type debate on the matter, or any other topic, I would suggest that an Unexplained Mysteries forum is not the best place for it as I cannot see you getting the level of accredited information you require. There are many other forums out there that may meet you critirea and if the level of discussion is below what you wish why not stay out of the threads as your continuing dismmissal of opinions and discussion on these threads is simply a derailment or annoyance. Maybe many of the posters here don't want 20 page climatology journal articles to read, and who would blame them ?, if that is what you want then, as I said there are forums where they are the norm. Instead a summary or low level discussion here can prompt interested individuals to conduct independent research and allow them to form their own opinions.

BTW do not confuse 'most intelligent' with 'best at remembering and regurgitating'....once out of taught programs some of the 'best at remembering and regurgitating' students I have seen start to struggle and question themselves, usually about 18 months into their PhD.

And Moon Monkey if you wish to respond to my comments, please do so in a pm so we don't derail the topic. Thanks for your understanding.

Ooops, but I think it might be too late for this thread anyway.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Guest]

It is our duty as citizens with an opinion to make certain that we understand the field well enough to be able to reasonably argue the fine points of a subject. Unfortunately in the case of climate change that means going ahead and reading those 20 learned articles on the subject. Despite what some would have us believe, the subject is very complex and requires months of reading to get to grips with, it is not a subject for idle speculation. Anything less will produce so much hot air, which will just add to the Global warming.

Br Cornelius

Edited February 18, 2009 by Guest

[Moon Monkey]

Basing opinions on hypothesis and speculation is all any of us are doing and can do, what is the point of reading 20 page journal publications when the the IPCC report, which was linked and discussed here last Feb, is good enough for 'policymakers' ? Surely then that is at a level at which we can discuss at on an Unexplained Mysteries sub-forum otherwise we might as well all sit back and shut up until climatologists fully understand what is going on, a few months of research by most of us on the finer points of climatology won't make any difference as lifetimes of research devoted to the subject hasn't.

The UM-Bot has opened an interesting thread in the 'main page' forum:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...=147320&hl=

Following the full article link and investigating all the people and other articles linked as you go along ( I soon had 20-30) tabs open) shows how the debate on global warming itself is still very much open, never mind it being man-made or what is the major man-made contributer.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Moon Monkey

[Resonance]

I love how some are criticizing one person for not providing any 'evidence' when you have provided none yourself. Aquatus made a great point and its the same point I tried to make in the other Global Warming thread. This is a science forum. Provide evidence for your claim. No one has been able to do it to a suitable degree.

Why start a thread now, then come up with an excuse as to why you didn't put support for your claim in the original introductory post? Why not wait until you were done with work and had a robust and strong thread going?

Post scholarly research, not backwash from other biased sites.

Cimber,

I've discussed this many many times on many other related threads.

Please, let me refer you to one such thread...

Go to post #25, and keep reading...