It would have cost you nothing at all to reply in earnest. Your choice, though.
You did say earlier that you had RG/Manny's posts in the past, and weren't convinced. Are you saying you're open to being swayed now?
(Note: I'm pretty much playing Devil's Advocate. I more or less sit on the fence on this issue, and am content to side with the majority of scientists without doing the research required to have a full understanding of the issue.)
Heavens no.You did say earlier that you had RG/Manny's posts in the past, and weren't convinced. Are you saying you're open to being swayed now?
But I probably would read through it attentively.
You can criticize the politics without knowing thing one about the science. I know you guys hate that, but that's effing democracy.
And if you were only criticizing the politics, then you wouldn't throw out terms like "baby science", or try to imply that medical science is much more worthy of trust than climate science, n'est-ce pas?
Why limit myself in advance? A large number of ins utional vanities potentially come into play.
Well, you can't quite complain about us confusing your dislike of the politics with the science when you also diminish the science as well.
By suggesting science might occasionally be wrong or pick the wrong side in politics, WH23 has somehow tarnished the reputation of science?
I think not.
Suggesting that scientists may be wrong =/= denying the credibility of said science
I think even Manny would argue that climate scientists could possibly be wrong about global warming. (That doesn't mean that the other side is right, of course.)
And what do you mean by "pick the wrong side in politics"? That statement is rather vague.
(Edit: My first statement isn't clear; I meant that you seemed to imply that medical science is inherently more worthy of trust than climate science, as if climate scientists didn't perform the same sort of rigorous testing. Now, if you want to argue that climatology is more of a "soft science" than the medical field, that's a different argument.)
Policy saviors could eventually turn out to be political wolves.
I certainly wouldn't rule the possibility out that new enviro regulation will eventually be captured by the regulated, still less that the regulated are imparting their opinion of various proposed regs directly to the regulators right now.
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-23-2010 at 04:11 PM.
I don't see how. Anybody can make a mistake.
Doctors are more respectable than weathermen. Is it somehow controversial or insensitive to say that?
True, but the word "credibility" has more connotations than just being right or wrong. A credible scientist, that goes by what the data presents and comes up with a theory, can be wrong.
Are you stating that medical science is more credible than climate science? (Respect is a wishy-washy word.)
I said respectable.
What ad on TV ever started out "8 out of 10 meteorologists agree..."
And which doctor predicted the path of a hurricane forming in the Gulf?
Climate science may not translate as well commercially; that makes it no less credible.
Eh, I don't necessarily think that climate scientists are throwing their lot in with either side, but that politicians have smelled an area where they can win votes. (Although, if one side were constantly bashing my contributions to science, I might lean towards the other.)
And I agree with your point that legislation based off impending threats of doom could A) lead to worse problems elsewhere and may B) be trying to fix a problem that may be fixed before it gets too out-of-hand.
http://www.weather.com/
http://www.wunderground.com/
http://environment.nationalgeographi...-overview.html
http://www.history.com/videos/global...-and-evolution
I never claimed otherwise. The emphasis on science's supposed lack of <commercial appeal> is distinctively yours, LNGR.
I don't think I made either of one these points . FWIW, I more agree with A) than B).And I agree with your point that legislation based off impending threats of doom could A) lead to worse problems elsewhere and may B) be trying to fix a problem that may be fixed before it gets too out-of-hand.
To come full circle, you can't just comb hair over Eberhoff's gloss of international climate protocols as baldly distributive justice, or his subordination of environmentalism per se to that end. It looks creepy as .
Last edited by Winehole23; 11-23-2010 at 11:44 PM. Reason: ...as hell
Just let me remind you that the sun is the source of nearly all our heat. When it took a slow average increase in output from about 1700 to 1950, that not all effects are instantaneous. We can still see latent heat from that collected in the oceans for hundreds of years. The cooling scare in the 70's could easily be the cause of aerosols in the air. Once we cleaned them out of the skies, we now see heat from the past solar warming. Over the long term, this applies if we assume the 0.18% increase in solar output during the time the AR4 covers:
The IPCC AR4 has a net radiative forcing of 1.6 watts. This edited diagram shows an increase of 0.93 watts by direct and indirect solar changes. The IPCC is sneaky by saying the sun has increased the "direct" radiative forcing by 0.12 watts, leaving out the extra energy amplified by the indirect radiation in the greenhouse effect. This added 0.81 watts is because of the sun. Not extra greenhouse gasses, yet the IPCC assigns this value withing the greenhouse gas forcing numbers.
Black carbon is the largest contributor to anthropogenic warming. It speeds the melting of snow and ice, and traps energy from the sun that would otherwise be reflected. I can confidently say that the retreat of the ice shelves is not from increased air warming, but from increased solar collection.
More on the 0.12 watts the IPCC limits solar forcing to. Look at the left side of the graphic. The delta is the 0.12 watts generated by the 0.18% change in solar output, that directly goes into the atmosphere. There is another difference of 0.3 watts that heats the earth, generating more IR into the greenhouse effect, which gets amplified by the greenhouse gasses to that 0.81 watts extra.
Is that enough for now?
I trust my doctors' consensus, because they have the time and training to be experts in their field.
At some point one has to make a judgment call as to who to believe when it comes to scientific matters. I generally defer to people who spend their lives studying a particular field, because they stand a much greater chance of being right about something within that field than not.
My work demands that I take expert opinions all the time, so perhaps I am a bit more comfortable with that. I wouldn't call it "bowing unthinkingly" so much as deferring to due expertise.
If people who study something reach a broad consensus, I am willing to defer to that.
That isn't really a source link for me to read. That is your re-cycled material.Just let me remind you that the sun is the source of nearly all our heat. When it took a slow average increase in output from about 1700 to 1950, that not all effects are instantaneous. We can still see latent heat from that collected in the oceans for hundreds of years. The cooling scare in the 70's could easily be the cause of aerosols in the air. Once we cleaned them out of the skies, we now see heat from the past solar warming. Over the long term, this applies if we assume the 0.18% increase in solar output during the time the AR4 covers:
The IPCC AR4 has a net radiative forcing of 1.6 watts. This edited diagram shows an increase of 0.93 watts by direct and indirect solar changes. The IPCC is sneaky by saying the sun has increased the "direct" radiative forcing by 0.12 watts, leaving out the extra energy amplified by the indirect radiation in the greenhouse effect. This added 0.81 watts is because of the sun. Not extra greenhouse gasses, yet the IPCC assigns this value withing the greenhouse gas forcing numbers.
Black carbon is the largest contributor to anthropogenic warming. It speeds the melting of snow and ice, and traps energy from the sun that would otherwise be reflected. I can confidently say that the retreat of the ice shelves is not from increased air warming, but from increased solar collection.
More on the 0.12 watts the IPCC limits solar forcing to. Look at the left side of the graphic. The delta is the 0.12 watts generated by the 0.18% change in solar output, that directly goes into the atmosphere. There is another difference of 0.3 watts that heats the earth, generating more IR into the greenhouse effect, which gets amplified by the greenhouse gasses to that 0.81 watts extra.
Is that enough for now?
I would need to see the source data underlying your assertions in order to really get into it.
Do you trust your doctor as much as, more, or less than your weatherman?
In all cases?
You really really really really sound like Darrin with like this, WH. If thats what you're going for, Bravo. Its one thing to declare apathy on a subject but its quite another to attack it while simultaneously trashing one aspect of it.
Please don't try to backtrack from this bull with your hands up like Tim Duncan after a foul with a surprised look saying "Who Me?" either. In case I didn't make it clear above, climate scientists are chemists, physicists, meteorologists, engineers, oceanographers, biologists, and other scientists and not "weathermen". I'm pretty sure that you trust the judgement of engineers, physicists, and chemists on a daily basis just as you would a doctor. I'm also fairly certain that meteorologists have serious affects on lives on a daily basis. You think people looking to evacuate from a hurricane call their doctor?
YOU yourself trust climate scientists on a daily basis so maybe you should reevaluate your question.
Last edited by MannyIsGod; 11-24-2010 at 12:51 AM.
I exploited my own loose terminology for comic effect and frankly as bait. I was soliciting the continuation of the conversation by mischievous means.
Mission accomplished but also: mea culpa. I wouldn't say the same sort of thing about the climatologist as the weatherman for sure.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
