Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by citizenschallenge » Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:11 am

A defensive tactic often heard is that your understanding all depends on which scientists you choose to listen to.
{Besides being a fallacious argument: I don't think we'd have ever learned to fly if that were true!}
It has become such a global meme that some scientists decided to examine the question.


http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full#sec-2

Expert credibility in climate change
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 July 6; 107(27): 12107–12109.
Published online 2010 June 21. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, Schneider
Author Affiliations
Department of Biology, Stanford University,
Electrical and Computer Engineering,
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation,
Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University,


Abstract
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC)...
...We compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers and classified each researcher into two categories: convinced by the evidence (CE) for anthropogenic climate change (ACC) or unconvinced by the evidence (UE) for ACC. We defined CE researchers as those who signed statements broadly agreeing with or directly endorsing the primary tenets of the IPCC Fourth Assessment...
... we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher, bringing the list to 908 researchers (NCE = 817; NUE = 93)...
... ∼60% of researchers where year of PhD was available, mean year of receiving a PhD for UE researchers was 1977, versus 1987 for CE researchers, implying that UE researchers should have on average more publications due to an age effect alone...

Supporting Information
http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107/-/DCSupplemental/pnas.201003187SI.pdf?targetid=nameddest=STXT
Anderegg et al. 10.1073/pnas.1003187107 SI
Materials and Methods
...(CE) convinced by the evidence (UE) unconvinced by the evidence.

We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively (i.e., all names listed) from the following lists:
IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors
(coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and contributing authors; 619 names listed),
2007 Bali Declaration (212 signers listed),
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) 2006 statement (120 names listed),
CMOS 2008 statement (130 names listed), and
Open letter protesting The Great Global Warming Swindle film errors. (37 signers)


{Total 1155 signatures}
After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had a total of 903 names.

We define UE researchers as those who have signed reputable statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC.
We compiled UE names comprehensively from the following 12 lists:
1992 statement from the Science and Environmental Policy Project (46 names),
1995 Leipzig Declaration (80 names),
2002 letter to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien (30 names),
2003 letter to Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin (46 names),
2006 letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (61 names),
2007 letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (100 names),
2007 TV film The Great Global Warming Swindle interviewees (17 names),
NIPCC:2008 Heartland Institute: “Nature,Not Human Activity,Rules the Climate," ed.Singer (24 listed contributors),
2008 Manhattan Declaration from a conference in New York City (206 names listed as qualified experts),
2009 newspaper ad by the CATO Institute challenging President Obama’s stance on climate change (115 signers),
2009 Heartland Institute document “Climate Change Reconsidered: {?*}
2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)” (36 authors), and
2009 letter to the American Physical Society (61 names).


{Total 792 signatures*}
After removing duplicate names across these lists, we had a total of 472 names.
Links to source documents are available at http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/∼prall/climate/list_sources.html.


{An addition mistake? It sure had me depressed until I found this in the fine print: “Only three researchers were members of both the CE and UE groups (due to their presence on both CE and UE lists) and remained in the dataset...”} ;)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Results and Discussion
The UE group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that ≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC (2). Furthermore, this finding complements direct polling of the climate researcher community, which yields qualitative and self-reported researcher expertise (2).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Check it out:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full#sec-2
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by citizenschallenge » Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:39 am

There's another aspect to this whole Science Isn't Done By Consensus meme.

If the "Sceptics" truly believed... than why, pray tell, are they scrambling so hard and scrapping the bottom of barrels to create these petitions peddling some "consensus of rejection" of the climate science supporting the reality of AGW?

Oh, by the way if you are going to agree to the reality of AGW, how in the world does one not likewise recognize that major important factors such as disappearing polar ice cap creating a heat absorption plate for the sun's rays, or the melting of Permafrost with its increasing methane releases plus their albedo changes, or unabated CO2 GHG injections into our atmosphere, or the increasing water vapor suspended in the atmosphere due to CO2 increasing concentration, etc, etc?

Where in the world is there a moderating driver, or negative-feedback rescuer, of the atmosphere's increasing thermo mass to be found?
Can any of you folks answer that?


Hell, according to Sceptical "truth's of distraction" about the sun stuff, we should be in a dramatic cooling trend, but the data tells a different story (OK the echo-chamber disagrees with wonderfully convolutions and omissions, but that's just the echo-chamber, it's proven to have little to do with real climate science. ). And this different story is really scary because once the sun does swings back increasing it's output - that's going to lend yet another kick to the spinning wheel of increasing warming and climate, read weather disruption.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
rrichar911
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4853
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:03 pm
Location: Texas, God's country USA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by rrichar911 » Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:06 am

When Einstein published the Theory of Relativity, what % of Scientist agreed with him?
It was virtually none.

Science is not about consensus it is about logic and evidence.
What really intrest me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the universe ~ Albert Einstein

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by xouper » Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:12 am

citizenschallenge wrote:A defensive tactic often heard is that your understanding all depends on which scientists you choose to listen to.
{Besides being a fallacious argument: I don't think we'd have ever learned to fly if that were true!}
It has become such a global meme that some scientists decided to examine the question.


http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full#sec-2

The paper you cite only measures the level of consensus, not which group is correct (CE vs UE). In other words, contrary to your assertion, the authors did NOT examined the question "it depends on which scientists you believe".

Also, your source confirms that there are indeed legitimate climate scientists who dissent from the consensus view of AGW. You have repeatedly argued elsewhere on this forum that there are none.

citizenschallenge wrote:Besides being a fallacious argument: I don't think we'd have ever learned to fly if that were true!

Where is the fallacy? Please explain.

citizenschallenge wrote:... I don't think we'd have ever learned to fly if that were true!

Not only is that a non sequitur, it's blatantly false.

Your "argument" here in this thread stands as a clear refudiation* of your critical thinking skills.







* footnote: http://blog.oup.com/2010/11/refudiate-2/

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by citizenschallenge » Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:34 am

xouper wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:A defensive tactic often heard is that your understanding all depends on which scientists you choose to listen to.
{Besides being a fallacious argument: I don't think we'd have ever learned to fly if that were true!}
It has become such a global meme that some scientists decided to examine the question.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full#sec-2

The paper you cite only measures the level of consensus, not which group is correct (CE vs UE). In other words, contrary to your assertion, the authors did NOT examined the question "it depends on which scientists you believe".
A) This was my introduction B) in fact the study does touch on the voracity of scientists, via publications and citations, not an unfair thing to do.
xouper wrote:Also, your source confirms that there are indeed legitimate climate scientists who dissent from the consensus view of AGW.
A) Baloney, I've admitted on a number of occasions that Lindzen, Christy and others have made valid scientific contributions.
B) Now why must you be so obtuse and not recognize that that is a very different thing from their AGWHoaxer PR efforts???
citizenschallenge wrote:... I don't think we'd have ever learned to fly if that were true!
xouper wrote:Not only is that a non sequitur, it's blatantly false.

Well, you know there were many different convictions on how to get a man into the air... but only those that stayed within the bounds of the physical reality of aeronautics achieved success.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by citizenschallenge » Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:38 am

rrichar911 wrote:When Einstein published the Theory of Relativity, what % of Scientist agreed with him?
It was virtually none.
Science is not about consensus it is about logic and evidence.

Than why do you hold all the Earth Observation evidence in contempt?
:senile:

ps. Your Einstein quote implies you don't actually understand the situation of physics at the time Einstein published his theories.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by xouper » Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:08 am

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:A defensive tactic often heard is that your understanding all depends on which scientists you choose to listen to.
{Besides being a fallacious argument: I don't think we'd have ever learned to fly if that were true!}
It has become such a global meme that some scientists decided to examine the question.

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full#sec-2

The paper you cite only measures the level of consensus, not which group is correct (CE vs UE). In other words, contrary to your assertion, the authors did NOT examined the question "it depends on which scientists you believe".

A) This was my introduction B) in fact the study does touch on the voracity of scientists, via publications and citations, not an unfair thing to do.

Contrary to your assertion, that study does NOT say which group is correct, CE vs UE. My comment stands unrefuted that the best you can do is choose which scientists to believe.

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:Also, your source confirms that there are indeed legitimate climate scientists who dissent from the consensus view of AGW.

A) Baloney, I've admitted on a number of occasions that Lindzen, Christy and others have made valid scientific contributions.

I don't believe you. Please provide a link to where you have admitted that.

You have repeatedly attacked any dissenting scientist and have said they have nothing of interest to say about global warming. Need links to refresh your faulty memory?

citizenschallenge wrote:B) Now why must you be so obtuse and not recognize that that is a very different thing from their AGWHoaxer PR efforts???

Stop being an ass. Where did you get the mistaken notion that I ever said they were the same? I do indeed recognize that there is a difference between hoaxers and legitimate climate scientists who disagree with the consensus about AGW.

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:... I don't think we'd have ever learned to fly if that were true!

Not only is that a non sequitur, it's blatantly false.

Well, you know there were many different convictions on how to get a man into the air... but only those that stayed within the bounds of the physical reality of aeronautics achieved success.

The fact that someone learned how to make a flying machine does not refute the notion that it depends on who you believe. The ones who made it work tended to believe the correct people. In the case of the Wright brothers, it didn't matter who they believed because they did their own science and believed their own results. So again, where is the fallacy you claim?

More accurately, what I said was that you -- you personally -- do not know who is right, the best you can do is choose which climate scientists to believe. I already explained this to you but apparently your faulty memory strikes again.

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by citizenschallenge » Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:33 am

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:Also, your source confirms that there are indeed legitimate climate scientists who dissent from the consensus view of AGW.

A) Baloney, I've admitted on a number of occasions that Lindzen, Christy and others have made valid scientific contributions.
xouper wrote:I don't believe you. Please provide a link to where you have admitted that.
You have repeatedly attacked any dissenting scientist and have said they have nothing of interest to say about global warming. Need links to refresh your faulty memory?

viewtopic.php?p=223323#p223323
For instance, the critiques and rare error discoveries of M&M, Christy, Lindzen, etc. did get picked up and digested within the climate science community, it isn't like any of their stuff has been ignored* ~ contrary to some claims ~ {most has been rejected, with cause, but that's a whole different matter}
viewtopic.php?p=221858#p221858
 The "sceptical scientists" with real bonafides can be counted on a couple hands.  Their papers may have contributed bits of understanding to the greater puzzle, but it can also be argued that most of their suppositions have been deconstructed and painstakingly shown to be meritless.  Though the "sceptical echo-chamber" never acknowledges the contra-evidence and arguments.  
Another reason to get pissed at the echo chamber, why don't they ever tell the rest of the story?
viewtopic.php?p=220978#p220978
xouper wrote:Perhaps he gets it from:
Keigwin, Lloyd D, "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea",
thank you X, I appreciate the straightforward post.
OK this is a genuine study, with documented results, though there is some debate about the accuracy of their time scale which would effect the inference the study can justify.

I'm sure there's a couple other lines somewhere, but I gotta get to bed.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by Martin Brock » Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:21 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:Check it out:

I have checked it. In fact, we've discussed the PNAS study in this forum before. The study lists John Christy as a CE, despite the fact that Christy is a leading (if not the leading) skeptic of AGW. He is not a skeptic of any anthropogenic climate change, because this "skepticism" is a straw man constructed by proponents of alarming change to create an easy target to counter. The real debate is over alarming change, and Christy doubts this change.

If Christy counts as a CE in this study, the definitions of CE and UE seem to create a huge majority in favor of the "convinced" position by design. But convinced of what? Of alarming climate change? No. That can't be.

Climate change itself has never been a controversy. The very first skeptical discussion of AGW that I read (part of the Oregon Petition), over a decade ago, granted all of the much discussed "consensus", including an anthropogenic CO2 increase and measured increases in global average surface temperature, even a plausible link between the two (if not full, direct causation). The actual AGW controversy hasn't involved these facts in decades, so emphasizing the facts, and focusing on ridiculous claims that nothing is changing, is only a diversion from the actual controversy.

I notice Christy's work, because I have a graduate degree from UAH, and Christy is a professor there. Christy himself concedes the "consensus" at the beginning of every presentation he makes, and again, he is a leading skeptic, not a proponent, of alarming climate change.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by Martin Brock » Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:10 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:For instance, the critiques and rare error discoveries of M&M, Christy, Lindzen, etc. did get picked up and digested within the climate science community, it isn't like any of their stuff has been ignored* ~ contrary to some claims ~ {most has been rejected, with cause, but that's a whole different matter}
viewtopic.php?p=221858#p221858
The "sceptical scientists" with real bonafides can be counted on a couple hands.

The study you link in the opening post counts Christy as "convinced by the evidence", while you refer to him here as a "skeptic". Clearly, a scientist can be "convinced by the evidence" and "skeptical" at the same time, so what am I supposed to conclude from your study?
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

Brian Ganek
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Climate realist
Location: Germany

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by Brian Ganek » Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:40 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:...Where in the world is there a moderating driver, or negative-feedback rescuer, of the atmosphere's increasing thermo mass to be found?
Can any of you folks answer that?
...


Clouds: Increased warming causes increased evaporation, causing increased cloud coverage causing cooling.
Things are seldom as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream.
W.S. Gilbert

Brian Ganek
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Climate realist
Location: Germany

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by Brian Ganek » Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:56 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:...We compiled these CE researchers comprehensively (i.e., all names listed) from the following lists:
IPCC AR4 Working Group I Contributors
(coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and contributing authors; 619 names listed),
2007 Bali Declaration (212 signers listed),
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) 2006 statement (120 names listed),
CMOS 2008 statement (130 names listed), and
Open letter protesting The Great Global Warming Swindle film errors. (37 signers)
...


That's some consensus you've got there, folks claiming everything from "We are writing to object to plans by Wag TV to distribute DVD versions of the programme ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’," to "[a]ddressing greenhouse gas emissions will require a polluter-pay approach and absolute emission caps" and "global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by at least 50% below their 1990 levels by the year 2050."
Things are seldom as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream.
W.S. Gilbert

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by citizenschallenge » Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:36 pm

Martin Brock wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:For instance, the critiques and rare error discoveries of M&M, Christy, Lindzen, etc. did get picked up and digested within the climate science community, it isn't like any of their stuff has been ignored* ~ contrary to some claims ~ {most has been rejected, with cause, but that's a whole different matter}
viewtopic.php?p=221858#p221858
The "sceptical scientists" with real bonafides can be counted on a couple hands.

The study you link in the opening post counts Christy as "convinced by the evidence", while you refer to him here as a "skeptic". Clearly, a scientist can be "convinced by the evidence" and "skeptical" at the same time, so what am I supposed to conclude from your study?

Yes Christy is an interesting unique fellow, scientist. He was one of three scientists to land in both CE & UE lists.
His science is one thing.
His political pronouncements and very public advocacy are another.
Do you appreciate that distinction?

One problem with trying to communicate with "sceptics" is that they're all over the place. Big people like Senator Inhofe and his Morano make one deceptive, often down right fraudulent, claim after another - yet the troops are lining up behind him and his political machine. John Christy is a lot more nuanced and thoughtful - yet his main political message seems to be against any proactive political recognition or intervention in our self created AGW situation which he acknowledges is real. Instead believing that historic economic rules of the free wheeling free market approach should be encouraged, because more energy and consumption is what society needs to achieve more progress.

Incidentally, another disturbing habit of "sceptics" is that rather than engage in a constructive dialogue of discovery with the "consensus science/scientists {and their fans} they resort to ridicule and rejection in the basest of terms. As though they've figured it out and all those other dude's are crazy. What's up with that?

As for conclusions, I guess mainly that ~97% of real climate scientists agree upon the CO2 science and the basics of AGW as presented {in addition to wanting to continue the pursue of better understanding of the details}. But, that we know enough about the beast, that society needs to stop dragging its feet and pretending that this climate transition isn't going to have tremendous impacts upon society as we know it.

gotta run... but I'll be back... ... the good lord will'n
Last edited by citizenschallenge on Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

Brian Ganek
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Climate realist
Location: Germany

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by Brian Ganek » Wed Jan 05, 2011 8:53 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:...Yes Christy is an interesting unique fellow, scientist...
Not unique, Lindzen takes a similar view. Instead of complaining about their politics, can you dispute their conclusions? What tests of AGW theory compel you to believe we should act?
Things are seldom as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream.
W.S. Gilbert

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by citizenschallenge » Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:06 pm

Brian Ganek wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:...Yes Christy is an interesting unique fellow, scientist...
Not unique, Lindzen takes a similar view. Instead of complaining about their politics, can you dispute their conclusions? What tests of AGW theory compel you to believe we should act?

ok, ok, I should have used "rare".
Did you have to bring up Lindzen, his lectures cause steam to come out of my ears.
But, ok. just can't do it now.

"Can I dispute their conclusions?"
Which conclusions would those be: the science, the political, the PR, or the use major media makes of their words...
Care to offer any more detail?
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by Martin Brock » Wed Jan 05, 2011 9:55 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:His science is one thing.
His political pronouncements and very public advocacy are another.
Do you appreciate that distinction?

You don't make any distinction here. You toss out labels like "science" and "pronouncement" without any detailed description. Specifically, what is Christy's science, what is his pronouncement, and what fault do you find with either?

Incidentally, another disturbing habit of "sceptics" is that rather than engage in a constructive dialogue of discovery with the "consensus science/scientists {and their fans} they resort to ridicule and rejection in the basest of terms. As though they've figured it out and all those other dude's are crazy. What's up with that?

Skeptics question the other dude's assumptions definitively. That's what the word "skeptic" means. Some skeptics of alarming AGW ridicule proponents, because people generally often behave this way, and skeptics are people generally, but if you see all the ridicule and rejection on one side of this debate, you can only be wearing blinders. Proponents routinely compare AGW skeptics to Holocaust deniers for example. You know it very well. In fact, AGW proponents have reduced the word "skeptic" to a term of derision more than any ideological faction I've encountered. This linguistic tactic ought to bother anyone interested in the scientific method, to which skepticism is essential.

As for conclusions, I guess mainly that ~97% of real climate scientists agree upon the CO2 science and the basics of AGW as presented ...

Again, an anthropogenic CO2 increase is not remotely controversial and has little to do with skepticism of AGW. A greenhouse effect from CO2 is not remotely controversial either. The controversies involve feedback effects, projected acceleration of observed warming trends over a century and catastrophic consequences of the warming.

~97% of real space scientists agree that large asteroids or comets strike the Earth occasionally. ~97% of real epidemiologists agree that pandemics occur. These facts are not evidence of looming catastrophe. I freely concede everything that Peter Doran calls a "consensus" on anthropogenic climate change, because his consensus is not remotely controversial or alarming. The actual debate over AGW involves real controversies that real scientists can and do debate.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by xouper » Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:27 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:Also, your source confirms that there are indeed legitimate climate scientists who dissent from the consensus view of AGW.

A) Baloney, I've admitted on a number of occasions that Lindzen, Christy and others have made valid scientific contributions.

I don't believe you. Please provide a link to where you have admitted that.

viewtopic.php?p=223323#p223323
For instance, the critiques and rare error discoveries of M&M, Christy, Lindzen, etc. did get picked up and digested within the climate science community, it isn't like any of their stuff has been ignored* ~ contrary to some claims ~ {most has been rejected, with cause, but that's a whole different matter}
viewtopic.php?p=221858#p221858
 The "sceptical scientists" with real bonafides can be counted on a couple hands.  Their papers may have contributed bits of understanding to the greater puzzle, but it can also be argued that most of their suppositions have been deconstructed and painstakingly shown to be meritless.  Though the "sceptical echo-chamber" never acknowledges the contra-evidence and arguments.  
Another reason to get pissed at the echo chamber, why don't they ever tell the rest of the story?
viewtopic.php?p=220978#p220978
xouper wrote:Perhaps he gets it from:
Keigwin, Lloyd D, "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea",
thank you X, I appreciate the straightforward post.
OK this is a genuine study, with documented results, though there is some debate about the accuracy of their time scale which would effect the inference the study can justify.

Where in any of your replies did you admit that those dissenting scientists made "valid scientific contributions." The most you have admitted is that they got published in journals and then you discount their work by saying it is "meritless", "of debatable accuracy, " or "rejected". Contrary to what you claim, you have not in the past admitted they made "valid scientific contributions."

In all cases that I recall, you have badmouthed their work. Specifically, you once said: "I'm always waiting to see if anything of substance and interest get's offered up by some 'skeptic'." That comment seems to indicate you do NOT think they have made any "valid scientific contributions".

On the other hand, if you now wish to state for the record that they have made valid scientific contributions, then I have no complaint.

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by citizenschallenge » Thu Jan 06, 2011 5:38 am

xouper wrote:Where in any of your replies did you admit that those dissenting scientists made "valid scientific contributions."

"Their papers may have contributed bits of understanding to the greater puzzle"

:nyanya:
Hey, just stumbled on the one I was really trying to recall:
viewtopic.php?p=222706#p222706
PS.   Their study was interesting and valuable - BUT, it was just one of hundreds of bricks in the wall... As it turns out, a very flawed brick in the wall. Which in itself is OK, scientists learn from examining their flaws and working forward from those lessons. . .



also, don't forget I thanked you for that Keigwin96 paper and gave it more attention than anyone has offered my links.
Last edited by citizenschallenge on Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Expert Credibility... cloud feedback

Post by citizenschallenge » Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:08 am

Brian Ganek wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:...Where in the world is there a moderating driver, or negative-feedback rescuer, of the atmosphere's increasing thermo mass to be found?
Can any of you folks answer that?
...

Clouds: Increased warming causes increased evaporation, causing increased cloud coverage causing cooling.

Here is the other side of that story, one that examines such musings.
If you notice any flaws please do share:

What is the net feedback from clouds?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm
"Most of the cloud feedback uncertainty is due to cloud changes near the equator, in the tropics and subtropics (Stowasser et al. 2006) {http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3875.1}.  Studies by
Lauer et al. (2010) {http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3666.1} and
Clement et al. (2009) {http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.abstract} both looked at cloud changes in these regions in the east Pacific, and both concluded that based on a combination of ship-based cloud observations, satellite observations, and climate models, the cloud feedback in this region appears to be positive, meaning more warming.

Dessler (2010) {http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/dessler10b.pdf} used cloud measurements over the entire planet by the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) satellite instruments from March 2000 to February 2010 to attempt to determine the cloud feedback.  Dessler concluded that although a very small negative feedback (cooling) could not be ruled out, the overall short-term global cloud feedback is probably positive (warming), and may be strongly positive.  His measurements showed that it is very unlikely that the cloud feedback will cause enough cooling to offset a significant amount of human-caused global warming."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~





oh but if you actually want to learn about it, you'll need to do some reading
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by citizenschallenge » Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:24 am

Martin Brock wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:His science is one thing.
His political pronouncements and very public advocacy are another.
Do you appreciate that distinction?

You don't make any distinction here. You toss out labels like "science" and "pronouncement" without any detailed description. Specifically, what is Christy's science, what is his pronouncement, and what fault do you find with either?

Please refer to:
A peek at Political Advocacy Science: Singer, Christy, Douglass
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=222360#p222360
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

Brian Ganek
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Climate realist
Location: Germany

Re: Expert Credibility... cloud feedback

Post by Brian Ganek » Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:08 am

citizenschallenge wrote:...Where in the world is there a moderating driver, or negative-feedback rescuer,...
Here is the other side of that story, one that examines such musings.
If you notice any flaws please do share:

What is the net feedback from clouds?...


You haven't shown how you test your belief that anthropogenic CO2 is driving climate toward disaster. You seem to understand climate by selecting a scientific elite and taking pronouncements as dogma. You haven't shown a single test of climate change mitigation or answered my question, "what test of AGW is compelling", so now you are off to argue about climate feedback.

The major flaw in drawing conclusions about climate feedback mechanisms is the complex and intangible nature of feedback loops.
Things are seldom as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream.
W.S. Gilbert

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by xouper » Thu Jan 06, 2011 7:38 am

citizenschallenge wrote:
xouper wrote:Where in any of your replies did you admit that those dissenting scientists made "valid scientific contributions."

"Their papers may have contributed bits of understanding to the greater puzzle"

:nyanya:

May have?? You don't sound very convinced there were any valid contributions.


citizenschallenge wrote:Hey, just stumbled on the one I was really trying to recall:
viewtopic.php?p=222706#p222706
PS.   Their study was interesting and valuable - BUT, it was just one of hundreds of bricks in the wall... As it turns out, a very flawed brick in the wall. Which in itself is OK, scientists learn from examining their flaws and working forward from those lessons. . .

When you call a paper "a very flawed brick in the wall", that doesn't sound very much like you consider it a valid scientific contribution.

Who are you trying to kid here?

And then when you say things like, "I'm always waiting to see if anything of substance and interest get's offered up by some 'skeptic'", it seems you do NOT think they have made any "valid scientific contributions".

But all your previous weasel words are irrelevant if you now wish to admit that they DID actually make valuable scientific contributions. Go ahead, say it, if that's really your position.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34502
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: My nightmare
Location: Transcona

Re: Expert Credibility... cloud feedback

Post by Gord » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:05 am

Brian Ganek wrote:You seem to understand climate by selecting a scientific elite....

"Elite?" Do you mean the "top 97%?" :lol:

Hee hee hee haw haw, "elite!" You crack me up....
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Squishua
Regular Poster
Posts: 522
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:33 am
Custom Title: Invisible Man
Location: California, USA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by Squishua » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:31 am

97% = 75 out of 77 climate scientists responding to the Doran survey. Seventy-five climate scientists.
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by Martin Brock » Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:53 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:
Martin Brock wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:His science is one thing.
His political pronouncements and very public advocacy are another.
Do you appreciate that distinction?

You don't make any distinction here. You toss out labels like "science" and "pronouncement" without any detailed description. Specifically, what is Christy's science, what is his pronouncement, and what fault do you find with either?

Please refer to:
A peek at Political Advocacy Science: Singer, Christy, Douglass
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=222360#p222360

I don't want another link to another of your posts listing many other links. The fact that John Christy writes articles in popular 'zines and appears on talk shows does not distinguish him from countless proponents of alarming climate change. Michael Mann had an oped in the Washington Post three months ago. In fact, the Nobel Laureate in this area is himself a political celebrity and not any sort of scientist at all, and he won the prize for Peace (read "Politics"), not for research in Physics or any other scientific discipline. Somehow, the Nobel committee never saw fit to give a prize to Roger Revelle. The fact is irrelevant to any scientific assertion, but "skeptics" certainly did not invent the politicization of this issue.

I'd rather like you to discuss the substance of Christy's assertions. Again, specifically, what assertion does he make, regarding AGW, that you classify as "political pronouncement" and dispute? What scientific assertion does he make that you dispute, and why do you dispute it?
Last edited by Martin Brock on Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by Martin Brock » Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:19 pm

Squishua wrote:97% = 75 out of 77 climate scientists responding to the Doran survey. Seventy-five climate scientists.

The more salient point is that Doran's poll questions would have drawn the same answers from practically every credible AGW skeptic, so the results mean nothing. The two scientists that bothered to offer a dissent presumably read into the questions stronger assertions than Doran dared to make, because they knew that Doran would publish the result widely in the popular press with triumphant headlines declaring support for "the consensus" and thus create in the minds of readers an impression of support for the far stronger assertions routinely reported. First, report man bites dog, then report an epidemic of canine rabies and imply a consequent epidemic in men. Hysteria spreads. Circulation soars. Epidemiological research grants rise. Mission accomplished.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
Martin Brock
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6036
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:36 pm
Location: Athens, GA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by Martin Brock » Thu Jan 06, 2011 3:23 pm

Headline news: 2010 the warmest year on record

But the headline actually reads "2010 Tied With 1998 as Warmest Global Temperature on Record" (as of September). In other words, global average temperature (measured this way) has not risen in 12 years, and every year since 1998 was lower than 1998 except for 2010. 1998 was unusually warm because of an El Nino (a temperature anomaly unrelated to AGW), and temperature fell following the El Nino, but the rate of increase following the El Nino was nonetheless lower than the preceding decade and shows no sign of increasing.

This fact seems inconsistent with AGW models projecting rapid acceleration of a global temperature increase in this century. The 20th century temperature rise was roughly one degree centigrade. If the 21st century rise is to be two degrees, the rate of increase must quadruple over the century. Doubling the rate over the century doesn't double the total increase over the century, because the rate reaches twice its current value only at the end of the century.

The most alarming AGW models predict a 4-6 deg C increase in global average temperature during the 21st century. These models require warming to accelerate even more rapidly. For a 5 degree C temperature increase, a uniform acceleration has the rate of warming increase from 1 deg C/century to 10 deg C/century by the end of the century; however, in the first decade of the century, the rate of increase has not risen at all. It has fallen. Even accounting for the El Nino, the rate of increase has fallen.

A decade is a very short time to measure an aggregate like global average surface temperature, and fluctuations on this time scale mean little; however, most climate scientists agree that warming during the first half of the 20th century is not attributable to the anthropogenic CO2 increase; therefore, only two decades of temperature increase in the 20th century (the 80s and the 90s) calibrate the AGW models projecting rapidly accelerating warming in the 21s century, due to an anthropogenic CO2 induced greenhouse effect. [Temperature did not rise in the middle of the century.] These models assume positive feedbacks with highly uncertain effects and certainly ignore many other feedbacks that modelers either deem insignificant or don't understand at all.

The Fourth IPCC Assessment Report calls a global average temperature increase between 1 and 3 degs C during the 21st century "global environmental sustainability". An increase in this range is the IPCC's projection with vigorous countermeasures to limit further CO2 emissions. If global average surface temperature increases only another degree C in this century, the warming is not catastrophic and does not warrant very costly countermeasures. We can do more harm than good by diverting resources toward these countermeasures and away from other measures, like raising the living standard of the billions of people on Earth subsisting in absolute poverty.
Last edited by Martin Brock on Thu Jan 06, 2011 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
People associating freely respect norms of their choice, and relationships governed this way are necessarily interdependent.

More central authorities conquer by dividing, imposing norms channeling the value of synergy toward themselves.

"Every man for himself" is the prescription of a state, not a free community. A state protects the poor from the rich only in fairy tales.

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by citizenschallenge » Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:06 pm

Brian Ganek wrote:You haven't shown how you test your belief that anthropogenic CO2 is driving climate toward disaster. You seem to understand climate by selecting a scientific elite and taking pronouncements as dogma. You haven't shown a single test of climate change mitigation or answered my question, "what test of AGW is compelling", so now you are off to argue about climate feedback.

The major flaw in drawing conclusions about climate feedback mechanisms is the complex and intangible nature of feedback loops.

A scientific elite, what is this elite? Thousands of scientists out in the field, more thousands behind various computers operating and monitoring fantastic observation satellites and other instruments. Who is this elite group? Look at Lindzen, Singer et al. now that seems like a pretty elite crowd.

NO I make my judgment calls after I’ve taken time to dig into arguments, examples brought to my attention. But, you seem to reject even considering the climate science lessons I’ve offer up, yet seem to think you can judge them meaningless.

Then you say something like: “ intangible nature of feedback loops.” What is that all about? Feedback loops are complicated, but they are being studied and unraveled - no invisible voodoo going on there. Which is why predictions concerning trends should not be dismissed because you haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with the evidence.

What do you have against acknowledging Earth Observation studies and what they are telling us?
Brian Ganek wrote: You don't make any distinction here. You toss out labels like "science" and "pronouncement" without any detailed description. Specifically, what is Christy's science, what is his pronouncement, and what fault do you find with either?

fair enough, I’ll get back to on that.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by citizenschallenge » Thu Jan 06, 2011 6:28 pm

xouper wrote:When you call a paper "a very flawed brick in the wall", that doesn't sound very much like you consider it a valid scientific contribution.
And then when you say things like, "I'm always waiting to see if anything of substance and interest get's offered up by some 'skeptic'", it seems you do NOT think they have made any "valid scientific contributions".


Flawed studies are what science learns from and builds on, such as Mann98 graph, lessons were learned, the science has moved forward. The sad thing about the whole Mann98 thing is that honest science was countermanded by political interests and morphed into a bludgeon of staggering proportion. Even, the most critical corrects amounted to quite subtle adjusts to the graph. Of course since then there has been evolution, yet the incoming data supports the validity (though flawed) of the pioneering effort. But, will the echo-chamber ever acknowledge that story?

We have the right to expect some voracity in the arguments we are listening to.
We have the right to learn and find flaws and draw conclusions and improve our knowledge.
I clearly documented in an earlier post what flaws scientists have outlined regarding in Douglass et al...
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=222265#p222265

Then I went on to explain that the bad/cheating part was not the science! Because science moves forward through mistakes as much as successes.

The cheating part comes in when these scientists get on the PR circuit and start making claims that their study simply do not justify ~ by any objective measure.
Further cheating comes in when these scientists do nothing to correct the even more outlandish claims made on their behalf, by other superstars of the corporate driven echo-chamber.

Two distinctively different issues. And they are at the heart of why we’ve slipped into such a horrendous shape in this country regarding science literacy
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility... No Physical Meaning?

Post by citizenschallenge » Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:14 pm

Brian Ganek wrote:The major flaw in drawing conclusions about climate feedback mechanisms is the complex and intangible nature of feedback loops.

This sentence really has me wondering where such notions come from.
Then, I just came across this over at Tim Lambert's Deltoid:
". . . For example, consider this review of Essex and McKitrick's book Taken by Storm at (where else?) Tech Central Station, by Paul Georgia.
Georgia writes:
No Physical Meaning
Essex, who studies the underlying mathematics, physics and computation of complex dynamic processes, raises some very fundamental scientific issues with regard to global warming. Take, for instance, the "average global temperature," which is the primary statistic offered as evidence of global warming. The problem with this statistic is that it has no physical meaning. Temperature is not a thermodynamic variable that lends itself to statistical analysis, nor does it measure a physical quantity.

So now Temperature is not a thermodynamic variable, nor a physical quantity*?
If you care to read the rest of the story and learn a little about atmospheric physics read this blog, with its many wonderful links: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/05/georgia.php

* also see: "Temperature as a Basic Physical Quantity"
J de Boer 1965 Metrologia 1 158 doi: 10.1088/0026-1394/1/4/003
http://iopscience.iop.org/0026-1394/1/4/003

So what should a thinking person make of the echo-chamber that broadcasts and rebroadcasts such scat?
It make a person wonder if perhaps they are the ones who are basically dishonest.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by xouper » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:02 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:... I've admitted on a number of occasions that Lindzen, Christy and others have made valid scientific contributions.

I challenged you on that claim and after all the evidence you have presented in an attempt to substantiate it, you failed miserably. In fact, all your comments since then have shown clearly that you do NOT believe they made valid scientific contributions. You continue to characterize their contributions as flawed. News flash "flawed" is not synonymous with "valid".

citizenschallenge wrote:... But, will the echo-chamber ever acknowledge that story?

What they say and what I say are not the same thing. It is not possible to discredit what I say by arguing against what they say.

citizenschallenge wrote:We have the right to expect some voracity in the arguments we are listening to.

That doesn't seem to have stopped you from posting blatantly faulty arguments and making gross misrepresentations of what I say. Your behavior on this forum does not live up to the standards you use to judge others.

citizenschallenge wrote:The cheating part comes in when these scientists get on the PR circuit and start making claims that their study simply do not justify ~ by any objective measure.

Like what Al Gore did in his infamous movie?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Expert Credibility... No Physical Meaning?

Post by xouper » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:48 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:
In 2003, Paul Georgia wrote:... Take, for instance, the "average global temperature," which is the primary statistic offered as evidence of global warming. The problem with this statistic is that it has no physical meaning.

So what should a thinking person make of the echo-chamber that broadcasts and rebroadcasts such scat?

Paul Georgia is not a scientist and is clearly wrong on this point and you are correct to point that out. However, I assume you know it's a fallacy to assume that everyone you disagree with got their science from such journalists. You might wish to be careful about insinuating such things about anyone here on this forum.

Here's the link to the original book review:
http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2003/03/storm-front.html

Brian Ganek
Regular Poster
Posts: 766
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 9:19 pm
Custom Title: Climate realist
Location: Germany

Re: Expert Credibility... No Physical Meaning?

Post by Brian Ganek » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:19 pm

citizenschallenge wrote:
Brian Ganek wrote:The major flaw in drawing conclusions about climate feedback mechanisms is the complex and intangible nature of feedback loops.

This sentence really has me wondering where such notions come from.
Then, I just came across this over at Tim Lambert's Deltoid:...So what should a thinking person make of the echo-chamber that broadcasts and rebroadcasts such scat?
It make a person wonder if perhaps they are the ones who are basically dishonest.


Are you saying my mystification on the subject of climate feedback loops is bogus? What does Tim's concept of temperature and physical quantity have to do with it?

citizenschallenge wrote:What is that all about? Feedback loops are complicated, but they are being studied and unraveled - no invisible voodoo going on there. Which is why predictions concerning trends should not be dismissed because you haven't taken the time to familiarize yourself with the evidence.

What do you have against acknowledging Earth Observation studies and what they are telling us?


Without experimental tests, aren't they the same as voodoo? By the way, CO2's IR absorption is invisible to the human eye, it's so insignificant we've evolved to ignore it. If your understanding comes from models and theory, that's not the same as hands on practice. I'm not denying Earth Observation studies, I'm just saying I don't hear the same thing they are telling you. What is the most compelling test for climate change mitigation?
Things are seldom as they seem, skim milk masquerades as cream.
W.S. Gilbert

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by citizenschallenge » Fri Jan 07, 2011 10:51 pm

oh hell, you mean Gore's a scientist, my bad.
xouper wrote:
citizenschallenge wrote:The cheating part comes in when these scientists get on the PR circuit and start making claims that their study simply do not justify ~ by any objective measure.

(As) Al Gore did in his infamous movie?

Care to list his lies?
But, please don't repeat Lord Monckton's distortions.
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2010/08/lord-monckton-about-your-claims.html

[dang edited, rather than quoted.... man I hate that especially when I kill a great come back.
sorry X, ;) ]
Last edited by citizenschallenge on Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:10 am, edited 2 times in total.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
numan
BANNED
Posts: 2938
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:04 pm
Location: What! Me Worry?

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by numan » Sat Jan 08, 2011 12:40 am

'
xouper wrote:That doesn't seem to have stopped you from posting blatantly faulty arguments....

Don't your many, many ad hominems constitute faulty arguments?

Like what Al Gore did in his infamous movie?

"Like what" is bad grammar, or at least, an infelicitous expression. Try "As".
Neither man nor woman can be worth anything until they have discovered that they are fools. This is the first step toward becoming either estimable or agreeable---and until it is taken, there is no hope.

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility... No Physical Meaning?

Post by citizenschallenge » Sat Jan 08, 2011 1:28 am

Brian Ganek wrote: What is the most compelling test for climate change mitigation?

Perhaps a sober appraisal of our past couple centuries, in particular this past century and it's trajectory.
And perhaps an appreciation that all of this has some mighty massive momentum behind it.
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
citizenschallenge
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5245
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:26 am
Custom Title: ..................
Location: southwest USA

Re: Expert Credibility... ad hominem fallacy

Post by citizenschallenge » Sat Jan 08, 2011 3:21 am

X if I'm full of it please try slaying me with daggers of science, because emotional misdirections, with their political undercurrents only encourage me.

Speaking of ad hominem ~ check out this nifty little (400wrd) essay I just stumbled on.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
the ad hominem fallacy fallacy

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. . .
The AGW consensus is NOT formed by scientists.
The AGW consensus IS compelled by the evidence.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Expert Credibility... ad hominem fallacy

Post by xouper » Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:30 am

citizenschallenge wrote:X if I'm full of it please try slaying me with daggers of science, because emotional misdirections, with their political undercurrents only encourage me.

So, in addition to posting faulty arguments, apparently you do not recognize a valid refutation of your faulty arguments. Not surprising, I guess, since if you are not smart enough to avoid making boatloads of logical errors in ther first place, it's also not likely you will understand when someone points out your error. I have not once seen you acknowledge an error that you made after its been pointed out to you.

Secondly, your faulty arguments are errors of logic, not usually errors of science. So your request that I slay you with science again shows you do not get it.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Expert Credibility in Climate Change, examined

Post by xouper » Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:34 am

numan wrote:
xouper wrote:That doesn't seem to have stopped you from posting blatantly faulty arguments....

Don't your many, many ad hominems constitute faulty arguments?

They are not, for the simple reason that the insults I post are not intended as arguments, ergo they are not ad hominems.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Expert Credibility... ad hominem fallacy

Post by xouper » Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:48 am

citizenschallenge wrote:Speaking of ad hominem ~ check out this nifty little (400wrd) essay I just stumbled on.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
the ad hominem fallacy fallacy

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". .

Funny you should mention this because that is exactly the error numan just made. Contrary to what numan seems to think, I do not use insults as part of my argument.

When you see a personal attack posted by me it is usually in retaliation to your attacks on me and is not intended as a rebuttal of your argument. It is intended as a personal insult. If you're gonna dish it out, then don't be surprised if you get it back.

I'll offer you a deal right now. If you stop attacking me personally, then I too will stop. Are you honorable enough to make a deal like that and stick to it? I'm offering you a truce. If you refuse it, that is a clear admission that you wish to keep attacking me personally.