Our planet Earth | Climate changes | Science | Global Warming
- Thread starter NorthStar
- Start date
- Status
I looked @ Michael Mann's date of birth and I couldn't find it. I've read his wiki page. I've also read Phil Jone's wiki page.
There were controversies about their emails...
You'll enjoy these too Bob, Dyson is a brilliant character and he's somewhere in the middle with a ton of common sense! The first is a light interview with Charlie Rose so you can get a feel for who he is, the 2nd video is him talking.
david
This would be the same Freeman Dyson who has ZERO credentials as a climate scientist, whose level of knowledge falls well short of what a first year undergraduate would be expected to demonstrate?
'Freeman Dyson starts an article with the words "My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models". Yet his article is hardly about climate models, or their relationship to experts or citizens, at all.
I personally have no disagreement with the "third heresy", the idea that the USA is at the end of its hegemony, by the way. I actually think this is occurring now, not 50 years hence as Dyson suggests. I have no idea what this has to do with the purported intent of Dyson's essay, though.
The primary practical (as opposed to theoretical) problem our field needs address these days is to identify specific regional trends and risks, to inform adaptation. This is as opposed to the mitigation question, whether and how much to change our behavior to reduce climate impacts.
The question of how much to mitigate or not is not primarily about climate science anymore, but about economics, ecology, and values. Dyson points out that this is not "a problem in meteorology", and on this point, it must be said, he is very much correct. We already know that the global temperature sensitivity to equivalent CO2 doubling is near 3 degrees C.
The fact that this is considered to be in doubt is a consequence of people using meteorological uncertainty as a diversion, in order to avoid the issue for as long as possible. Dyson fails to understand how this is happening. Like most older scientists he lives in an older, more civilized world than the rest of us occupy. So he misunderstands where the controversy comes from.
That said, his position seems to meander: carbon is a land management problem, but it isn't a problem anyway, and we might kick off an ice age and we might not and... Many of the common misconceptions and not uncommon hubris are scrambled together here. This isn't a serious article, it's an intelligent but essentially uninformed rant. Unfortunately I have to call it irresponsible.
It's also a bit incoherent. So I respond below to some of the individual points made without further summary.
Dyson's text is in blue, my responses in black. Hopefully people inclined to take Dyson seriously on this matter will come by here and think again.
PART I Paragraph 2
The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds.
Sure...
That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
Um, I must have missed a step here... In fact climate model experts do not particularly "believe" models. Our skepticism is informed and consequently rather complex. Do we believe this, did we capture that... So here Dyson is completely off base.
Paragraph 3
the warming is not global
This is just confusion. He should read my realclimate article on the definition of "global warming".
Paragraph 4
The number that I ask you to remember is the increase in thickness, averaged over one half of the land area of the planet, of the biomass that would result if all the carbon that we are emitting by burning fossil fuels were absorbed. The average increase in thickness is one hundredth of an inch per year.
Per YEAR!!! On every piece of viable land, under economic use or otherwise... He certainly identifies a viable carbon sequestration sink, but the idea of an inch of graphite per century being redistributed on all land everywhere in soil restructuring is hardly a trivial matter to handwave away.
Anyway, notice he is already wandering away from climate modeling and has said very little about it.
Paragraph 5
Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. If we plant crops without plowing the soil, more of the biomass goes into roots which stay in the soil, and less returns to the atmosphere. If we use genetic engineering to put more biomass into roots, we can probably achieve much more rapid growth of topsoil. I conclude from this calculation that the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology.
Well, it certainly isn't an EASY problem in land management. However, I agree with Dyson that the focus on meteorology is misplaced in the mitigation arguments. Climate science is crucial on the adaptation side, but all the focus on it on the mitigation side is a red herring and a vicious one.
What Dyson is proposing here seems at first blush unrealistic to me. Of course I'm always hopeful when a mitigation startegy is proposed that doesn't involve too much disruption. I don't know if he's talked to soil experts or agronomists. What it is, is a very coarse approach to a mitigation strategy.
Let's be pleased, at least, that Dyson acknowledges a problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Paragraph 7
When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet.
Well, the topic has suddenly lurched to ecology. This has little to do with climatology. I think I can say that ecologists I know would tend to agree with this, but it has nothing to do with what is normally charitably described as "anthropogenic global warming skepticism". That's not the disturbing part, though. This is:
When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured.
Yikes! So should the patient keep ingesting the toxin meanwhile?
PART III Paragraph 3
If human activities were not disturbing the climate, a new ice-age might already have begun.
Maybe so.
We do not know how to answer the most important question: do our human activities in general, and our burning of fossil fuels in particular, make the onset of the next ice-age more likely or less likely?
Nonsense. (He wheels out the usual misinterpretation of Broecker's ocean-driven change scenario, but no scientist is expecting any ocean circulation changes to overwhelm the huge warming and kick off an ice age.) This is simply a layman's mistake and totally out of line with the evidence. Here he is simply substantively wrong, and repeating a common misconception.
PART IV Paragraph 2
First, if the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet? Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second. It says that the warm climate of six thousand years ago with the wet Sahara is to be preferred, and that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may help to bring it back. I am not saying that this heresy is true. I am only saying that it will not do us any harm to think about it.
It does no harm to think about it, but it can do a great deal of harm for a celebrated person to speculate in an uninformed and incorrect way. We are changing the overall forcing of the system much more than the shift from 6000 years ago to today. The extent to which this is the case is quantifiable.
Essentially the natural shifts on that time scale amount to moving solar input from one season to another. The climate system responds in interesting ways, ways which, by the way, are replicated by climate models operating from first principles.
Our present forcing operates at all latitudes in the same direction. The system cannot respond identically. Humans are focussed on climate at the surface, but physics cares about the entire depth of the atmosphere; surface conditions are an important but not a dominant component. We cannot replicate a prior natural climate with an atmosphere whose radiatively active components are different than those seen in nature.
The idea that we will drift smoothly into and settle down to a lusher more convenient climate is a fantasy and a rather stupid one. Yes, a blundering near unconscious drunk could, in fact, blunder into a wonderful jet-setters party and be celebrated for his wit and plied with champagne and caviar. This is no reason for him not to sit down and recover his wits; the champagne thing is rather a long shot.
Update: Promoted from comments:
Ugo Bardi said...
Excuse me. I have a question. At some point Dyson says:
In humid air, the effect of carbon dioxide on radiation transport is unimportant because the transport of thermal radiation is already blocked by the much larger greenhouse effect of water vapor. The effect of carbon dioxide is important where the air is dry, and air is usually dry only where it is cold. Hot desert air may feel dry but often contains a lot of water vapor. The warming effect of carbon dioxide is strongest where air is cold and dry, mainly in the arctic rather than in the tropics, mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands, mainly in winter rather than in summer, and mainly at night rather than in daytime. The warming is real, but it is mostly making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter. To represent this local warming by a global average is misleading.
I am not sure of whether this is correct or not. Sounds reasonable, but, on the other hand, considering the level of the rest, it may not be. Is this the reason why the higher latitudes are warming more than the lower ones?
My reply:
Thanks Ugo. I'm really astonished that I missed this. I must have been rolling my eyes up a little too high.
The argument you quote is invalid for two reasons.
First, the greenhouse effect never fully saturates; increased optical depth continues to warm the surface long after the atmosphere is essentially opaque to outgoing infrared waves.
Second, for the most part there is little overlap between the absorption bands of H2O and CO2.
The idea that the effect applies "mainly in mountainous regions rather than in lowlands" is particularly astonishing. It is exactly 180 degrees from the truth.
It is the integrated column depth of greenhouse gases that trap the outgoing IR. Mountains, being nearer the top of the atmosphere, experience less greenhouse warming than the surface.
So "particularly in the mountains" shows that the author has never even sat down with the undergraduate level approximation of how atmospheric radiative transfer actually works. It's really quite shocking.
In fact, the high latitudes are more sensitive to warming. However this is not because they are dry but rather, in part, because of the persistent presence of low clouds, (exactly contrary to the tale he is trying to spin) as well as ice-albedo feedback. See, e.g., Holland and Botz
Update 3/29/09: See also: Slicin' and Dicin' with Dyson and Bryson in response to recent coverage of Dyson with reference to an interesting precedent.
You clearly haven't bothered to even glance at the article or the graphs it contains, as it debunks many of the claims made in your first video
If you had you would have learned it was not representing the work of a guardian journalist, nor was it a puff piece of the sort you have linked to, but collation of peer reviewed studies originating from NASA to the New Scientist to Nature and the Royal Society.
These are pre eminent scientific journals and bodies, not the fringes of some republican event
If you can't even be bothered to glance at a graph there is absolutely no way I am going to waste hours of my weekend wading through the uninformed ramblings of some random. If our esteemed host North Star was unable to get through it i rate my own chances as slim to none; he has far more tolerance for idiocy than i.
This is why i have requested you link to the peer reviewed papers that back up your argument, as opposed to uniformed rants as you continue to do
Here you've done it again. Ivar Gaiever, your Nobel laureate, is opining on a subject he knows nothing about; he has spent the entirety of one day googling climate change and then gave that talk in a field that is not the one he has studied
Ivar Giaever, Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Posted on 12 July 2012 by dana1981
We often see scientists from non-climate fields who believe they have sufficient expertise to understand climate science despite having done minimal research on the subject; William Happer, Fritz Vahrenholt, and Bob Carter, for example. As he admits in his own words, Nobel Prize winning physicist Ivar Giaever fits this mould perfectly:
"I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case."
That quote comes from a presentation Giaever gave to the 62nd Meeting of Nobel Laureates in 2012, for some unknown reason on the subject of climate change. As Giaever notes at the beginning of his talk, he has become more famous for his contrarian views on global warming than for his Nobel Prize, which have made him something of a darling to the climate contrarian movement and climate denial enablers.
In this post we will examine the claims made by Giaever in his talk, and show that his contrarian climate opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, as Giaever admits. Giaever personifies the classic stereotype of the physicist who thinks he understands all scientific fields of study:
Accuracy of the Surface Temperature Record
In his talk, Giaever spent a lot of time criticizing Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC chairman) for winning the Nobel Peace Prize for - according to Giaever - 'making the global surface temperature record famous' (Figure 1).
surface temp record
Figure 1: Various global surface and lower troposphere temperature data sets.
Giaever proceeded to question the accuracy of the surface temperature record, ultimately asking:
"How can you measure the average temperature of the Earth? I don't think that's possible."
Unfortunately this simply displays an ignorance regarding the surface temperature record, whose accuracy has been confirmed time and time again, and which is also consistent with lower troposphere temperature measurements, as illustrated in Figure 1.
Glenn Tramblyn has answered Giaever's question in great detail in his four part series Of Averages & Anomalies, and Kevin C also had an excellent and detailed post on recent temperature measurements in The GLOBAL global warming signal. The answers to these questions are out there for those who are willing to spend more than a few hours on Google searches, and it is not constructive to give presentations on subjects without first doing such basic research. We are again left wondering why Giaever was asked to give a presentation to Nobel Laureates on a subject on which he has no expertise and has not done even the most basic research.
The Significance of the Observed Global Warming
Giaever also disputed the significance of the measured 0.8°C average global surface warming over the past 130 years, comparing it to a human fever and the temperature at which he had to maintain tissue for cell growth during his own biophysical experiments, also showing the following slide:
Giaever small temp change slide
Giaever does not seem to know how to put the observed 0.8°C global surface temperature change in proper context. It may sound small in comparison to the absolute global temperature in Kelvin, or in comparison to changes in human body temperatures, but it is a very large change in global surface temperature, especially over a period as brief as 130 years (Figure 2).
holocene temps
Figure 2: Eight records of local temperature variability on multi-centennial scales throughout the course of the Holocene, and an average of these (thick dark line) over the past 12,000 years, plotted with respect to the mid 20th century average temperature. The global average temperature in 2004 is also indicated. (Source)
In addition to this rapid surface warming, the global oceans have also been accumulating heat at an incredible rate - the equivalent of more than two Hiroshima "Little Boy" atomic bomb detonations per second, every second over a the past half century. Presumably a physicist of Giaever's stature would appreciate the magnitude of this global energy accumulation.
As a physicist, Giaever should also understand that seemingly small objects and quantities can have large effects, but instead he seems to rely on incorrect "common sense" perceptions which are based on ignorance of the subject at hand.
CO2 vs. Water Vapor
As another example of this behavior, Giaever proceeds to demonstrate that he also does not understand the role of the greenhouse effect in climate change.
"Water vapor is a much much stronger green[house] gas than the CO2. If you look out of the window you see the sky, you see the clouds, and you don't see the CO2."
Needless to say, the second sentence above represents a very bizarre argument. Giaever is either arguing that CO2 is a visible gas (it is not) and the fact that you can't see it means there is too little in the atmosphere to have a significant warming effect, or that only visible gases can warm the planet, or some other similarly misinformed assertion.
That clouds are visible to the human eye and CO2 isn't simply is not relevant to the greenhouse effect and global warming. It's also worth noting that like CO2, water vapor is not visible - clouds are condensed water droplets, not water vapor.
Additionally, water vapor does not drive climate change. There is a lot of it in the atmosphere, so it is the largest single contributor to the greenhouse effect. However, water vapor cannot initiate a warming event. Unlike external forcings such as CO2, which can be added to the atmosphere through various processes (like fossil fuel combustion), the level of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapor is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air. If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it condenses and falls as rain or snow within a week or two. As Lacis et al. (2010) showed, as summarized by NASA (emphasis added):
"Because carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing in the current climate atmosphere, atmospheric carbon dioxide therefore qualifies as the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth."
Climate Myth Whack-a-Mole
Giaever continues ticking off the most common climate myths, going from arguing that it may not even be warming, to claiming the warming is insignificant, to asserting the warming is caused by water vapor, and ultimately that the warming is indeed caused by human influences:
"Is it possible that all the paved roads and cut down forests are the cause of "global warming", not CO2? But nobody talks about that."
Climate scientists do of course investigate and discuss the effects of deforestation and urban influences. The 2007 IPCC report discusses the influences of deforestation on climate in great detail, for example here and here, and devotes a section to policies aimed at reducing deforestation here. The United Nations has also implemented the Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) to address the effects of deforestation on climate change. In short, by claiming that nobody has considered the effects of deforestation on climate, Giaever once again demonstrates that he simply has not done his homework.
The IPCC report also discusses the influences of urban heat islands and land use effects here and here, for example. Giaever then claims that one person has talked about these effects - US Secretary of Energy and fellow Nobel Laureate Steven Chu, who suggested paining roofs white to offset some warming, though he does not discuss Chu in a very flattering light.
"[Chu has] been bought by the global warming people, and he's now helping Obama trying to make green energy in the United States."
In the presentation in question, Chu described the potential effects of the white roof proposal as follows:
"Making roads and roofs a paler color could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years"
Chu discusses white roofs as a geoengineering possibility in response to greenhouse gas-caused climate change, as a way to offset a small portion of the global warming our fossil fuel combustion and associated carbon emissions are causing.
Failure to do Homework Earns a Failing Grade
At this point we're 9 minutes into Giaever's 32-minute presentation, and he begins comparing climate science to religion. Yet based on his arguments in those first 9 minutes, it's clear that Giaever has not done even the most basic climate research, so how can he possibly make such a radical determination?
While Giaever is certainly a highly accomplished physicist, that does not automatically make him a climate expert as well. As Giaever himself has admitted, he has spent very little time researching the subject, and it shows. He simply bounces from one climate myth to the next, demonstrating a lack of understanding of Climate Science 101, and then insults the entire scientific field by comparing it to a religion, bringing life to the xkcd cartoon at the top of this post.
Memo to climate contrarians - expertise comes from actually researching a subject. There is a reason why scientists who have researched climate change in the most depth are also the most likely to be convinced that global warming is human-caused (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change (green) and unconvinced by the evidence (red) with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).
In his talk, Giaever complained that he had become famous for his climate contrarianism, which he claimed indicated that dissenting opinions on the subject are not welcome. On the contrary, Giaever has been criticized for repeating long-debunked climate myths which he could have easily learned about through a little bit of research - by perusing the Skeptical Science database, for example, where we have debunked all of his Googled climate misconceptions.
Instead, Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which he has not even done the most basic research. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized. Giaever finishes his talk by proclaiming
"Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely."
The problem is that Giaever has not done his homework, which is why he gets the wrong answer, and his presentation deserves a failing grade. Ironically, Giaever defines "pseudoscience" as only seeking evidence to confirm one's desired hypothesis, which is precisely how Giaever himself has behaved with respect to climate science.
Listening to Giaever's opinions on climate science is equivalent to giving your dentist a pamphlet on heart surgery and asking him to crack your chest open. While climate science has a basis in phyiscs (and many other scientific fields of study), it is an entirely different subject, whose basics Giaever could undoubtedly grasp if he were willing to put the time in to do his homework.
But individual scientists (even Nobel Laureates) suffer from cognitive biases like anyone else. That's why we don't rely on indvidual scientists or individual papers to draw conclusions about climate change. The only way to get an accurate picture is through the work of many scientists, peer reviewed and scrutinized over decades and tested against multiple lines of evidence. Giaever demonstrates how far cognitive bias - reinforced by a few hours of Googling - can lead anyone to the wrong conclusions, and also proves that no individual's opinion, regardless of his credentials, can replace the full body of climate science evidence.
Note: for climate-related talks at the same conference made by Nobel Laureates who have actually researched the topics in their presentations, see these videos of Paul Crutzen and Mario Molina.
from the abstract:
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
It is truly embarrassing when someone who once did good work goes like this.
IComposer99 at 03:03 AM on 12 July, 2012
Personally speaking, Dr Giaever's admission that his stance on global warming is the result of a few hours' work on Google makes me very embarrased for him.
It puts him in such august company as anti-vaccine activist and not-quite-celebrity Jenny McCarthy, who credits "The University of Google" for her understanding of vaccinology and the aetiology of autism spectrum disorders.
If your understanding of some subset of science ends up being functionally equivalent to Jenny McCarthy's, then "Google U" is not your friend.
The bottom line that DOES relate is, Dr. Giaever's presentation was poor, at best, and deeply embarrassing, at worst. My point about having to battle "fake experts who happen to have a Nobel prize in some utterly unrelated field" stands....
Roger D at 04:04 AM on 12 July, 2012
I have a "skeptical" acquaintance that occasionally emails news articles me. He sent one when Giaever resigned his membership in the APS over their statement on AGW. I contemplated a response along the lines of "well, that's his prerogative but from everything I can tell regarding his reasons, it seems he doesn't really understand the scientific case in favor of AGW and therefore APS's acceptance of the case” – but in the end I just sighed to myself and never responded knowing from experience the attention span for meaningful drill-down into the heart of Giaever’s criticism was unlikely. I am convinced that most “skeptics” in the general public simply just aren’t that interested in the science. A handy but shallow sound-bite will do just fine, thank you. Basically, I think that much (most ?) of the public believe that when a “really smart noble prize-winning scientist” says he doesn’t believe AGW is a problem, then that in and of itself counts as valid counter-evidence against the science. …” I suppose we all use simplifications but in my experience listening to “skeptical” friends and acquaintances, there is little or nothing below the surface. If say to Frank “OK Frank, I agree, water does account for the largest part of greenhouse effect, please continue and tell why human generated GHGs are not important with respect to climate change”, I almost always get another sound-bite.
So Dana, thanks for the post. I will politely bring it to my “skeptic” friends’ attention.
For what it's worth, I've gotten *really* good at quickly identifying which conversation with any given denier/skeptic is going to be worth my time, by paying close attention to how they respond to established scientific research: I'm not old, by any means, but 55 is old enough to recognize how much of my remaining time should be spent yelling into the void...>;-/
Ivar Giaever's presentation and accompanying video must be deemed a "special gift" for the "fake-skeptics" who just like to see and hear their misconceptions validated by somebody who is a Nobel Laureate, regardless of how wrong he is about the topic. A point in case are the video statistics on the Lindau Laureate website: If you look at the list of best rated videos, Giaever's video is currently at rank 10 with 183 ratings and an average of 4,64 and it even tops the list of most viewed videos with 3223 views. These numbers are quite the outliers compared to the other videos available on the website. Mario Molina’s talk (which was given directly before Giaever’s) is the second most watched video, but still only has 274 views and 8(!) ratings with an average of 3,88. Something is clearly “wrong” with these ratings – especially as it is a no brainer of which of the two videos is the factually correct one. So, how can it be that a factually wrong presentation has been viewed a lot more and rated a lot better than a correct one? Most of us here will have an answer to this obviously rather rethorical question I guess!
0 0
dana1981 at 05:54 AM on 12 July, 2012
BaerbelW @ 39 - interesting point about the videos and views and ratings on that website. I guess that shows Giaever was right about one thing - you get a whole lot more attention for contrarian views on climate change(even if that contrarianism is based on total ignorance of the subject) than mainstream views (even if those mainstream views are based on sound science).
But you don't just get criticism, you also get a lot of positive attention (hence Giaever's video's wholly undeserved high rating), which I suspect is why Giaever continues to speak on the subject - I suspect he likes the accolades from climate contrarians.
This reminds me of curiousd's comment @9, where certain individuals would prefer to take a contrarian stance because it increases their odds of having a groundbreaking opinion. It also increases their odds of being very wrong, as Giaever is here.
0 0
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 08:08 AM on 12 July, 2012
It amazes me how a scientist from any field can not grasp the basics of climate science. Does the scientific process work differently in other disciplines? All that is required is to pick up a copy of International Journal of Climatology, or similar standing climate publication, and read. You probably don't even have to read much more than the introduction to each article to realise the climate science community is well beyond the "is it us or not?" question.
0 0
Bert from Eltham at 09:08 AM on 12 July, 2012
As an ignorant physicist that worked in structural biology I have met Nobel Laureates in our field. My boss used to bring his international mates into the lab and then have to leave because of some administrative problem. They all asked more questions than even offering any advice or pontificating. They were genuinely interested how we did things in our lab. I was only introduced to them by name and had no idea who they were. It was only later at lunch or dinner I found out who they were. These were all very humble men who knew their limitations in spite of their success and obvious talents.
I can only suppose that if the deniers cherry pick data they will cherry pick Nobel Laureates. Bert
0 0
Esop at 03:09 AM on 13 July, 2012
It truly is sad to see Giæver putting so much effort into thoroughly destroying his future reputation as a brilliant scientist. Interestingly, he only achieved mediocre to poor grades in college. Could seem that he is extremely talented in a very narrow field, but much less apt at absorbing knowledge in others.
Last edited:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
Tweaking the data to fit your model/assumptions IS NOT GOOD SCIENCE, in fact, quite the opposite. All conclusions and recommendations resulting from bogus data should be ignored.
[FONT=lucida_granderegular]In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified.It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.[/FONT]
Tweaking the data to fit your model/assumptions IS NOT GOOD SCIENCE, in fact, quite the opposite. All conclusions and recommendations resulting from bogus data should be ignored.
It's too bad Politics has infected the reliability of the scientific conclusions and hypotheses with regard to cyclical climate change. Wealth redistribution via carbon taxation is NOT a solution. You can't get reliable answers listening to the liberal biased media and educational institutions. What's a smart, common sense person to do ?
Oh dear.....research from someone affiliated with the Koch Brother's Heartland Institute. For some reason I have a difficult time trusting climate date funded by oil barons.
Live your life well, seek to find happiness, be mindful of others, try not to be wasteful, be thankful for your blessings and accomplishments. Enjoy wine, women, and song! To that of course the Ten Commandments is a reasonable place to start, and avoiding the seven deadly sins, while striving to practice the cardinal virtues.
And that would be considered poor science, or reason,... you begin with a negative bias rather than look at the research, data, results, and conclusions. The goal of all scientific inquiry is to find truth and filter out bias.
Not taking any sides here. On a website I normally look for news,mostly economic,I found this. FWIW
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
And why I say climate change discussion should be banned along with discussion of religion, politics, and guns. The number ways you insult others who disagree is disrespectful to say the least. Someone who disagrees is 1) fearful, 2) a religeous zeolot, 3) a child incable of reason, 4) selfish and inconsiderate of others.
Bias? The global warming "disputers" contend that the vast majority of climate scientists all around the world have nearly all agreed to participate in a massive conspiracy to create false information about the causes of global warming. They believe these scientist are all lying for financial gain.
Yet the "disputers" will not believe that those who participate in the fossil fuel industry and make trillions of profits would not lie to protect those massive profits.
Let's consider the financial reality - who has the most incentive to lie? It is the fossil fuel barons of course.
Just follow the money to find the truth....
Truth hurts sometimes. But I agree and deleted my post.
This topic is unavoidably tied to politics, religion, etc as they are the major driving factors, unfortunately facts are not as valuable as they used to be, it's all how you FEEL about the subject and the reality you choose to make up for yourself.
Climate change deniers on the right, anti-vaxers on the left, the only sensible Americans are in the center and have no media voice. To bring the discussion back to music I'll give you a quote from Stealers Wheel:
"Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, here I am, Stuck in the middle with you."
"Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, here I am, Stuck in the middle with you."
- Status
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |