Global Warming - running out of time to prevent ECONOMIC disaster

[BCO]

For those who don't understand or choose to misrepresent Jones' BBC interview:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/

 

[Bismuth]

My goodness, is this thread dead yet, like the Copenhagen Summit already is?.

BCO and the likes must get over it, and move on already, geez.

B

 

[BCO]

My goodness, is this thread dead yet, like the Copenhagen Summit already is?.

BCO and the likes must get over it, and move on already, geez.

B

I'm happy to let climate scientists get on with their work. I am forced to post in here to try and counter all the lies and FUD that gets spread by the denial camp.

 

[Phronesis]

I'm happy to let climate scientists get on with their work. I am forced to post in here to try and counter all the lies and FUD that gets spread by the denial camp.

BCO in a parallel universe:

I'm happy to let climate scientists get on with their work. I am forced to post in here to try and counter all the lies and FUD that gets spread by the alarmist camp.

 

[Bismuth]

I'm happy to let climate scientists get on with their work. I am forced to post in here to try and counter all the lies and FUD that gets spread by the denial camp.

Ok, but why are you doing this, can't the climate scientists speak for themselves?. If you are their self-appointed champion, I hope you are doing it all over the Internet, and offline, and not just on MyBB.

B

 

[Praeses]

Ok, but why are you doing this, can't the climate scientists speak for themselves?. If you are their self-appointed champion, I hope you are doing it all over the Internet, and offline, and not just on MyBB.

B

They publish in international journals. They are speaking for themselves by doing what they love. Some people however, want to misinterpret it all. I'm a scientist and I do not go onto forums trying to voice my work, I do that at scientific congresses. I'd rather do my work (which I love) and publish when possible than to bicker with people who think they know what they're saying. It takes many years to gain all the knowledge required to do the work, so if you're not specialized in the same field, you can't go and bend the work towards your bias. There are people in the field who peer review and actually try to redo the publications to check whether it should be retracted or not.

2c

 

[Bismuth]

@Praeses: Ok, I understand where you're coming from. Are you a climate scientist?. Although, I guess that is not something you want to admit here, what you do, that is. Then you just end up getting bombarded with questions.

B

 

[BCO]

@Praeses: Ok, I understand where you're coming from. Are you a climate scientist?. Although, I guess that is not something you want to admit here, what you do, that is. Then you just end up getting bombarded with questions.

B

Wow, you really are bitter about that still.

 

[Praeses]

i never claimed to be a climate scientist, i just know what it is to be a scientist and thus know that specialization plays a vital role in comprehension and actually being able to criticize related work. It's pretty obvious in this thread that many people don't understand that and nor do they understand how things work in the scientific community in general.

 

[BCO]

i never claimed to be a climate scientist, i just know what it is to be a scientist and thus know that specialization plays a vital role in comprehension and actually being able to criticize related work. It's pretty obvious in this thread that many people don't understand that and nor do they understand how things work in the scientific community in general.

That's what I tried to explain to Bismuth - if you're NOT a climate scientist and you have an opinion on the matter that flies in the face of the accepted view, then your opinion is not really valid. Opinions on a scientific subject by those who are not qualified to have an opinion don't count - that includes my own opinion. That being said I accept that the mainstream climate science community is best qualified to explain current climate change and, accordingly, I accept their findings; so my opinion and what's being told to us by the science are not in dischord.

 

[Bismuth]

Wow, you really are bitter about that still.

:wtf:, all I asked if he was a climate scientist, in all sincerity. Especially since he said that he was a scientist of some sort, I was curious as to what type of scientist.

I actually only came back into this thread, as I wanted to try to understand the perspective that BCO and co. are seeing this whole global-warming thing from. Based on recent replies, I do not believe this is going to happen. Oh well.

/leaves thread

B

 

[BCO]

:wtf:, all I asked if he was a climate scientist, in all sincerity. Especially since he said that he was a scientist of some sort, I was curious as to what type of scientist.

I actually only came back into this thread, as I wanted to try to understand the perspective that BCO and co. are seeing this whole global-warming thing from. Based on recent replies, I do not believe this is going to happen. Oh well.

/leaves thread

B

Ok let me try and explain my perspective. There are thousands of climate scientists worldwide. Almost all of them advocate AGW. There are meta studies that confirm this. These are the people who are most qualified and able to tell us about the earth's climate, and I believe them. It's really that simple. There are no alternatave theories that better explain current warming than AGW.

We are being told by these people that this is a serious matter with possibly disatrous consequences for large portions humanity and the planet's ecosystem. The predicted effects of climate change are less certain than the science around what's causing the climate change - we can't say for sure how increased temperatures will affect the planet. I believe that it is prudent to mitigate greenhouse gases and try and avoid these unknowns. This is a very serious issue with a lot at stake, and that people who are deliberately spreading misinformation to protect vested interests are not very good people.

 

[zippy]

So what is AGW ?

 

[BCO]

So what is AGW ?

Anthropogenic Global Warming i.e. man-made greenhouse gases are the biggest driver of current climate change.

 

[BandwidthAddict]

Here's some more hide-the-decline:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/...-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/

Interesting. Rural data shows temperature stability but urban data shows steep increase. OMW Concrete, brick and tar are responsible for local warming; quickly, we must impose a huge tax on these to offset the disastrous effects of concrete, brick and tar. Lets destroy our economy and put into place a global hegemony to fix this HUGE and DISASTROUS problem.

 

[BCO]

Wow, some people still don't understand (or simply choose to ignore) what "hide the decline" meant in context.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[BCO]

"Auditors" take note.

Are you familiar with the nonreci-procal formulation of the 2nd Law of Thermo: It says that if you mix a teaspoon of wine with a gallon of sewage, you get sewage; if you mix a teaspoon of sewage with a gallon of wine you get sewage. I am afraid that is also true of science and anti-science.

Science has existed in more or less its present form for about 150 years. It works. The reason why it works is because of the way it has structured its checks and balances and filters and incentives.

You don’t become a scientist without about 20 years of hard work and crappy wages. A corollary is that you don’t become a scientist unless you are passionate about understanding your subject matter. The curiosity-driven nature of science is one of the things that makes scientific fraud extremely rare. It also means that any fraud is likely to be detected fairly quickly, since an interesting result will attract a large number of researchers trying to reproduce it just to understand it better.

Science also rewards ambition while at the same time punishing too great an emphasis on personal ambition. The way to get ahead is to set aside personal agendas and work to advance understanding.

Peer review, scientific consensus–all the elements that make up modern scientific methodology–they are all there for good reason. And as I say, it works–astoundingly well. There simply is no better human institution for delivering reliable knowledge. Because science works so well, I am loathe to tinker with it. Add or subtract one element, and at best, you may slow the process. At worst, you could wreck it. I’m very conservative when it comes to things that work, but then, fortunately, there aren’t too many of those things in life.

“Auditing” is not part of the scientific method. It adds no value. The ersatz skeptics have added not one iota of understanding about Earth’s climate. Indeed, that is not their goal. They have no passion to understand the climate. So where is their incentive for progress? Where is their incentive to put aside personal agendas and push understanding forward? The methods of the auditors are sterile–as evidenced by their abysmal publication record. In fact their methods are VERY similar to those of creationists, HIV deniers, anti-vaxers, tobacco companies, etc. They all concentrate on tiny perceived chinks in the evidence while ignoring the mountains of evidence all around them.

So, John, just as we cannot teach “ID” in the biology classroom, we also cannot compromise scientific methodology to accommodate the methods of the “auditors”. If they want to influence science, they will have to do science.

http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=3041#comment-163173

 

[seventhson]

Well the weather is changing and is quite strange.

 

[Phronesis]

Gotta love this guy

[video=youtube;qOOc5yiIWkg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg[/video]

 

[bk.ru]

Gotta love this guy

I love his work!

[video=youtube;MeSSwKffj9o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o[/video]