Did anyone see the climatologist on H&C last night?

[achiro]

I normally don't watch H&C but saw that Ann was going to defend her comments and was curious since so many had been talking about it on here. Anyway, the next guest was a climatologist that disagree's with much of AG's take on global warming. Discussed the "2000" involved with the UN decision and how very few of them are actually in the scientific community. Disputed several things AG has been spouting. Apparently there is a film coming out next week in the UK that is the anti-ag film. Things are getting interesting.
:pop: :pop: :pop:

[Fraggle145]

I normally don't watch H&C but saw that Ann was going to defend her comments and was curious since so many had been talking about it on here. Anyway, the next guest was a climatologist that disagree's with much of AG's take on global warming. Discussed the "2000" involved with the UN decision and how very few of them are actually in the scientific community. Disputed several things AG has been spouting. Apparently there is a film coming out next week in the UK that is the anti-ag film. Things are getting interesting.
:pop: :pop: :pop:

yes they are. you can find anyone to dispute anything these days. in the previous global warming thread and you can look at the data from the IPCC report and look up all of the scientists on it. this guy is just trying to make a name for himself, JMHO.

[achiro]

yes they are. you can find anyone to dispute anything these days. in the previous global warming thread and you can look at the data from the IPCC report and look up all of the scientists on it. this guy is just trying to make a name for himself, JMHO.
So did you see the guy or are you just blowing smoke out your arse? ;) My assumption here is that you didn't see it or you would know that this is one guy that happens to be in the new film, not the one that made the film. The way they were talking is that there are several climatologists from several reputable Universities in the film.
I just get a kick how some(from both sides) are so quick to completely disregard something because it desn't fit with their current point of view.

[fadada1]

yes they are. you can find anyone to dispute anything these days. in the previous global warming thread and you can look at the data from the IPCC report and look up all of the scientists on it. this guy is just trying to make a name for himself, JMHO.

and al gore isn't????

al "i invented the internet" gore????

al's just ticked because a bigger moron won the white house.

[achiro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwlqDIVCy1M

[crawfish]

I read yesterday when a well-known French climatologist, one of the biggest proponents of global warming concerns, had changed his mind and was now convinced it was mostly natural.

A big blow to Gore, but at least he won't have to cut his energy usage. :D

[SoonerStormchaser]

Global warming is the biggest crock of **** ever conjured up by man.

[Fraggle145]

here we go again... The reason that I said that is because I have read the reports and have looked up the scientists in the report. you can look at eh report yourselves (IPCC Report (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)), and you can look on their website http://www.ipcc.ch/ for the information of the members that made the report. The reason I would argue that he is "a well known climatologist" is because he is saying things that are contrary to the generally accepted belief held in the scientific community and not necessarily because he is a good scientist. This report has been accepted by the Bush administration, as all of the governments involved had to approve it. you can also look in the old thread (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89981) for all of the additional information that I have supplied, including my qualifications, political affiliation (or lack thereof), and what I am doing to attempt to alleviate the problem.

I have no idea what H&C is I'll be honest, because I dont watch the news or much TV. Anything about a scientific issue I go to the primary peer-reviewed literature. Al Gore isnt the only one spouting a message about global climate change, and just because anyone hates his guts or his politics doesnt mean that he cant be right and that there are many of us without his political beliefs that still think global warming is happening. Especially in the scientific community there really isnt a debate, there are a FEW scientists that disagree, but they get a disproportionate amount of media airplay. The overwhelming majority of us agree that the evidence points to the fact that global climate change is occurring and it is our fault. In the literature you can look and see in the literature that there is maybe 1 study in 10,000 that disagrees with global climate change or the fact that humans are causing it. in the media its about 50/50.

[achiro]

here we go again... The reason that I said that is because I have read the reports and have looked up the scientists in the report. you can look at eh report yourselves (IPCC Report (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)), and you can look on their website http://www.ipcc.ch/ for the information of the members that made the report. The reason I would argue that he is "a well known climatologist" is because he is saying things that are contrary to the generally accepted belief held in the scientific community and not necessarily because he is a good scientist. This report has been accepted by the Bush administration, as all of the governments involved had to approve it. you can also look in the old thread (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89981) for all of the additional information that I have supplied, including my qualifications, political affiliation (or lack thereof), and what I am doing to attempt to alleviate the problem.

I have no idea what H&C is I'll be honest, because I dont watch the news or much TV. Anything about a scientific issue I go to the primary peer-reviewed literature. Al Gore isnt the only one spouting a message about global climate change, and just because anyone hates his guts or his politics doesnt mean that he cant be right and that there are many of us without his political beliefs that still think global warming is happening. Especially in the scientific community there really isnt a debate, there are a FEW scientists that disagree, but they get a disproportionate amount of media airplay. The overwhelming majority of us agree that the evidence points to the fact that global climate change is occurring and it is our fault. In the literature you can look and see in the literature that there is maybe 1 study in 10,000 that disagrees with global climate change or the fact that humans are causing it. in the media its about 50/50.
I just linked to the interview from last night, take 10 minutes and watch it. A lot of what he says makes a lot of sense to me.
As far as the research stuff you talk about in the second paragraph. 1 in 10,000 is that a scientific percentage or something you made up? :D Sorry, couldn't resist. The big question on that is who's paying for the majority of that research and what are the parameters. In other words, I can do 10,000 studies on a subject that says something but that still don't make it so if that 1 study has more subjects, history, and backing, etc.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

The reason I would argue that he is "a well known climatologist" is because he is saying things that are contrary to the generally accepted belief held in the scientific community and not necessarily because he is a good scientist.

So because a scientist, a man who has dedicated his life to the pursuit of discovery, says things that are contrary to "generally accepted belief", he's a bad scientist? That's warms the cockels of Heidi Cullen's heart, I bet.

Galileo Galilei, did you know that by this logical convention, you're a bad scientist? Earth... Round... Poppycock!


The overwhelming majority of us agree that the evidence points to the fact that global climate change is occurring and it is our fault. In the literature you can look and see in the literature that there is maybe 1 study in 10,000 that disagrees with global climate change or the fact that humans are causing it.

Overwhelming majority of whom? Scientists that, like yourself, discount opposing studies because they don't fall into what you called the "generally accepted belief"? I wanna see your 10,000 to 1 ratio, hoss. You played the card. I'm all in. Let's see what you got. I personally think you're full of crap.


Especially in the scientific community there really isnt a debate, there are a FEW scientists that disagree, but they get a disproportionate amount of media airplay.

This is the moneyshot, kids. The debate in the scientific community, which is the byproduct of disproportionate media airplay, has no root in evidence and study, no root in analysis of data, no basis in the scientific method. It's just a few crackpots, right? Playin' to the media?

Can I get your autograph, Dr. Cullen? And is there any way you can hook me up with Nicole Mitchell that used to be on here in Tulsa? She's hawt.

[Fraggle145]

I just linked to the interview from last night, take 10 minutes and watch it. A lot of what he says makes a lot of sense to me.
As far as the research stuff you talk about in the second paragraph. 1 in 10,000 is that a scientific percentage or something you made up? :D Sorry, couldn't resist.

heh. Its a paper in Science (the most prestigous journal for scientists, it is our wet dream to publish in there). I can get you all of the citation information if youd like to look it up yourself.


The big question on that is who's paying for the majority of that research and what are the parameters. In other words, I can do 10,000 studies on a subject that says something but that still don't make it so if that 1 study has more subjects, history, and backing, etc.

I agree, but then the other question is who is paying for the studies that are done by those who disagree with that opinion. That is a two way street. I know that many of the scientists at OU, get their money for study via the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the EPA. And the 10,000 studies covers about a ten year window by the scientific community.

Like I have said previously, everyone has every right to be skeptical (especially if one informs himself on the issue and by that I mean not via the media, but doing ones own research and coming to ones own opinion, which may be inconvenient...), that doesnt mean even if we dont believe it that we shouldnt make every attempt to be more efficient with our use of carbon, and basically err on the side of caution that could prevent the most possible damage rather than erring on the side that is for lack of a better word lazy and stubborn. JMHO.

[Fraggle145]

Overwhelming majority of whom? Scientists that, like yourself, discount opposing studies because they don't fall into what you called the "generally accepted belief"? I wanna see your 10,000 to 1 ratio, hoss. You played the card. I'm all in. Let's see what you got. I personally think you're full of crap..

Heres your answer. I first will admit I misquoted the original article in saying that it was 10,000. I thought it was a subsample taken from those 10,000 to conduct the study, and as you will see from the response articles it is an honest mistake that could be made. However if you want to burn me at the stake for it you would be within your rights to do so. I have included both the original article from science as well as the challenge made by another scientist and the author's reply to it.

Edit: I removed the pictures of it see the next post for the articles.

[Fraggle145]

Sorry , I got my hands on a text copy...

Science 3 December 2004:
Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1686
DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618

Essays on Science and Society
Also see the archival list of the Essays on Science and Society.

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

References and Notes

1. A. C. Revkin, K. Q. Seelye, New York Times, 19 June 2003, A1.
2. S. van den Hove, M. Le Menestrel, H.-C. de Bettignies, Climate Policy 2 (1), 3 (2003).
3. See www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.
4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).
5. National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Science of Climate Change, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2001).
6. American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003).
7. American Geophysical Union, Eos 84 (51), 574 (2003).
8. See www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/atmos02.html.
9. The first year for which the database consistently published abstracts was 1993. Some abstracts were deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put "climate change" in their key words, the paper was not about climate change.
10. This essay is excerpted from the 2004 George Sarton Memorial Lecture, "Consensus in science: How do we know we're not wrong," presented at the AAAS meeting on 13 February 2004. I am grateful to AAAS and the History of Science Society for their support of this lectureship; to my research assistants S. Luis and G. Law; and to D. C. Agnew, K. Belitz, J. R. Fleming, M. T. Greene, H. Leifert, and R. C. J. Somerville for helpful discussions.

Science 13 May 2005:
Vol. 308. no. 5724, pp. 952 - 954
DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5724.952

Letters
Consensus About Climate Change?

In her essay "The scientific consensus on climate change" (3 Dec. 2004, p. 1686), N. Oreskes asserts that the consensus reflected in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) appears to reflect, well, a consensus. Although Oreskes found unanimity in the 928 articles with key words "global climate change," we should not be surprised if a broader review were to find conclusions at odds with the IPCC consensus, as "consensus" does not mean uniformity of perspective. In the discussion motivated by Oreskes' Essay, I have seen one claim made that there are more than 11,000 articles on "climate change" in the ISI database and suggestions that about 10% somehow contradict the IPCC consensus position.

But so what? If that number is 1% or 40%, it does not make any difference whatsoever from the standpoint of policy action. Of course, one has to be careful, because people tend to read into the phrase "policy action" a particular course of action that they themselves advocate. But in the IPCC, one can find statements to use in arguing for or against support of the Kyoto Protocol. The same is true for any other specific course of policy action on climate change. The IPCC maintains that its assessments do not advocate any single course of action.

So in addition to arguing about the science of climate change as a proxy for political debate on climate policy, we now can add arguments about the notion of consensus itself. These proxy debates are both a distraction from progress on climate change and a reflection of the tendency of all involved to politicize climate science. The actions that we take on climate change should be robust to (i) the diversity of scientific perspectives, and thus also to (ii) the diversity of perspectives of the nature of the consensus. A consensus is a measure of a central tendency and, as such, it necessarily has a distribution of perspectives around that central measure (1). On climate change, almost all of this distribution is well within the bounds of legitimate scientific debate and reflected within the full text of the IPCC reports. Our policies should not be optimized to reflect a single measure of the central tendency or, worse yet, caricatures of that measure, but instead they should be robust enough to accommodate the distribution of perspectives around that central measure, thus providing a buffer against the possibility that we might learn more in the future (2).

Roger A. Pielke Jr.
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research
University of Colorado
UCB 488
Boulder, CO 80309-0488, USA

References

1. D. Bray, H. von Storch, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 80, 439 (1999).
2. R. Lempert, M. Schlesinger, Clim. Change 45, 387 (2000).

Response
Pielke suggests that I claimed that thereare no papers in the climate literature that disagree with the consensus. Not so. I simply presented the research result that a sample based on the keywords "global climate change" did not reveal any, suggesting that the existing scientific dissent has been greatly exaggerated and confirming that the statements and reports of leading scientific organizations--including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences--accurately reflect the evidence presented in the scientific literature.

Pielke is quite right that understanding the results of scientific research does not implicate us in any particular course of action, and the purpose of my Essay was not to advocate either for or against the Kyoto accords or any other particular policy response. A full debate on the moral, social, political, ethical, and economic ramifications of possible responses to climate change--as well as the ramifications of inaction--would be a very good thing. But such a debate is impeded by climate-change deniers. In this respect, I am in complete agreement with Pielke's conclusion, which was precisely the point of my Essay: Proxy debates about scientific uncertainty are a distraction from the real issue, which is how best to respond to the range of likely outcomes of global warming and how to maximize our ability to learn about the world we live in so as to be able to respond efficaciously. Denying science advances neither of those goals.

Naomi Oreskes
Department of History and Science Studies Program
University of California at San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093, USA

The author is in the Department of History and Science Studies Program, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

[achiro]

words

[Tulsa_Fireman]

These proxy debates are both a distraction from progress on climate change and a reflection of the tendency of all involved to politicize climate science.


Proxy debates about scientific uncertainty are a distraction from the real issue, which is how best to respond to the range of likely outcomes of global warming and how to maximize our ability to learn about the world we live in so as to be able to respond efficaciously.


"If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a seal of approval." Dr. Heidi Cullen

In other words, as is apparent throughout the article, even though you may think it's wrong, don't disagree with the "general consensus". Debating against climate change, whether through opposition to cause or existence, is strictly political with no scientific basis BECAUSE WE SAID SO. So shut up and quit arguing because we need to focus on how to stop global warming, that very thing you're studying and disagree with in whatever form you may disagree.

Here's the nugget I found most striking, by the way.


Others agree. The American Meteorlogical Society, The American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling.

Evidence is often compelling. The evidence that I ate a ham sandwich and later had the squirts is compelling in the fact that I may associate ham sandwiches with getting the squirts. Doesn't make it fact. That, combined with Cullen's statement concerning AMS meteorologists and the fact that the jury's still out in regards to the AMS taking a definitive stance on mad-made climatological change only makes the paragraph that much more suspect. All those agencies stated the evidence is compelling...

Not that it proves fact.

Which invalidates the premise stated in the article that "others agree" with the postulates presented therein, especially in the context they've been presented in. Disingenuous, if you ask me.

But I'm no high-falootin' scientist. I'm just a dumb ol' fireman.

[Ike]

Fraggle, here's the thing about the scientific consensus, specifically the consensus outlined in the IPCC report. The theory that climate change is a man-made thing only holds at the 10% significance level, meaning that there is a 10% chance, based on the mounds of data they purport to examine, that they are wrong. In my field, this would be taken to mean "you got nothing". The threshold for discovery in my area is "5 sigma", or a one in 10 million chance of being wrong. Even a 2 -4 sigma effect will only be called "Evidence For." If most of their data is at the 10% significance level, that means that out of the plots they base their conclusions off of, one in 10 probably show some effect that isn't anything more than a statistical fluctuation....around here anyway, a result with that kind of significance would only be useful in setting a limit.

The point I'm making with this, is that if the IPCC report is supposed to be the most comprehensive review of climate science out there, that it is my humble opinion that it is folly to ask governments to make multi-billion dollar decisions on a 10% significance level result. That doesn't mean that I don't think anything should be done, but that I think that the climate science needs more work, and that in my opinion, energy independence is thus far a much better reason to look into alternative energies.

[SicEmBaylor]

One of my professors is a meteorologist/climatologist who totally disputes the idea that global warming is man made. Actually, I shouldn't say he totally disputes it since he has said that he's open to the possibility but has yet to see any definitive proof. His pet peeve though is with politicians who act as if it's scientific fact that global warming exists. He berated Gore one day for saying that he'd "stop climate change."

[Ike]

One of my professors is a meteorologist/climatologist who totally disputes the idea that global warming is man made. Actually, I shouldn't say he totally disputes it since he has said that he's open to the possibility but has yet to see any definitive proof. His pet peeve though is with politicians who act as if it's scientific fact that global warming exists. He berated Gore one day for saying that he'd "stop climate change."

It's hard to blame the politicians. Politicians rarely understand qualified statements about science. For them, science is black and white. It's either there or it isn't, and what they don't understand is that the process of determining whether it's there or it isn't, is in many cases, extremely difficult. So when the IPCC says it's 90% certain that GW is caused by man, the politician usually rounds up to 100%....unless the politician wants to disbelieve, in which case anything less than 100% is the same as 0%. But that 10% of being wrong...in reality, thats huge.

I mean, I'd like it if my politicians had a good grasp of statistics, but I know that that would be asking waaaaayyyyy too much.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Actually, I shouldn't say he totally disputes it since he has said that he's open to the possibility but has yet to see any definitive proof.

And that's why this sticks in my craw so bad.

The supposed detractors that should just be quiet with their so called 'political proxy arguments', for everyone I've heard or read about, have been wide open in their counterargument. The respectable, 'I'm not seeing it with what I got, but if you got something I don't, by all means, let's see it!' angle. Open discovery. That's what science is about. Not lowering your scientific highbrow on a section of your own community and berating their efforts as distracting to the 'real issue' when the real issue is what those very scientists are debating!

It doesn't take a scientist to read those articles and quotes and see how, by pointing a finger at a section of the scientific community and accusing them of politicizing the issue, they are in fact politicizing the issue by debunking discovery through edict and declaration. If I was a scientist, that'd **** me off.

It's that same approach in the extreme that killed some of the greatest discoverers of mankind on the grounds of 'consensus'. Insanity is more like it.

[Fraggle145]

A full debate on the moral, social, political, ethical, and economic ramifications of possible responses to climate change--as well as the ramifications of inaction--would be a very good thing. But such a debate is impeded by climate-change deniers. In this respect, I am in complete agreement with Pielke's conclusion, which was precisely the point of my Essay: Proxy debates about scientific uncertainty are a distraction from the real issue, which is how best to respond to the range of likely outcomes of global warming and how to maximize our ability to learn about the world we live in so as to be able to respond efficaciously. Denying science advances neither of those goals.


In other words, as is apparent throughout the article, even though you may think it's wrong, don't disagree with the "general consensus". Debating against climate change, whether through opposition to cause or existence, is strictly political with no scientific basis BECAUSE WE SAID SO. So shut up and quit arguing because we need to focus on how to stop global warming, that very thing you're studying and disagree with in whatever form you may disagree.

I dont think this is the essence of it. I think it is saying the debate against climate change is political and uses scientific evidence from the literature to prove it! Not because we said so. Also that is a lot of studies to just say so without dissent. And I dont think that it is arguing against detractors, it is arguing against deniers. It argues against those denying the science that has been done, not those that may have new information, at least this is how I took it.


Here's the nugget I found most striking, by the way.

Evidence is often compelling. The evidence that I ate a ham sandwich and later had the squirts is compelling in the fact that I may associate ham sandwiches with getting the squirts. Doesn't make it fact. That, combined with Cullen's statement concerning AMS meteorologists and the fact that the jury's still out in regards to the AMS taking a definitive stance on mad-made climatological change only makes the paragraph that much more suspect. All those agencies stated the evidence is compelling...

Not that it proves fact.

Which invalidates the premise stated in the article that "others agree" with the postulates presented therein, especially in the context they've been presented in. Disingenuous, if you ask me.

But I'm no high-falootin' scientist. I'm just a dumb ol' fireman.

Im not saying it is above skepticism and as Ike said it is significant at the 90% level. The other problem is that we dont have information that disproves global climate change and falsification is the root of all science. So yes the information is "compelling and supportive." it is a lot harder to get information that is capable of falsification when you dont have an Earth to experiment on. In Ecology my field 5-10% certainty is generally acceptable, this is because it is a lot more difficult to have adequate scientific control for assessment in experimentation when compared with physics. However we also have a lot less opportunity for replication and a lot less resolution.

I also dont think implying that you are some dumb old fireman is adequate when its obvious you are having an intelligent conversation with me, and I havent tried to put you down.

I also agree that more data is obviously necessary. IMO, All signs point to yes, but thats just me. but I guess my question is how long do we wait? Should we take some measures in the short term just in case? Or should we do nothing and hope for the best?


"If a meteorologist has an AMS Seal of Approval, which is used to confer legitimacy to TV meteorologists, then meteorologists have a responsibility to truly educate themselves on the science of global warming. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a seal of approval." Dr. Heidi Cullen

All I take from this quote is that meteorologist should have degrees and be capable of understanding all of the literature including the dissenting literature on global climate change and be able to make an informed opinion.

[Fraggle145]

...It's that same approach in the extreme that killed some of the greatest discoverers of mankind on the grounds of 'consensus'. Insanity is more like it.

But here you could ask which "consensus" is killing the discovery? the scientific one, or the one in the public...:confused: