74
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 12:31 am
Of course, you can say that researcheres from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, the University of East Anglia etc are in error with their report, which was published 10 years before those quoted researches were done.

You are free to say such BUT NOT THAT I'M IN ERROR ABOUT MY QUOTATION.

Btw: that research ahs been reported - according to 'google' - in at least 183 English media. Some reporting about that with sceptism, like the Houston Chronicle on today's frontpage:

Valid science or a perfect storm for controversy?
Quote:
... 19 respected climate scientists published a research paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluding that human burning of fossil fuels has warmed the oceans, providing the fuel for tropical cyclones to become monster hurricanes.
...
But some researchers who study the complicated interplay between hurricanes and global warming suggest little has changed in the last few months to suggest that scientists have come to a consensus.

"Honestly, I don't think anyone's changed their mind," said Phil Klotzbach, a hurricane researcher at Colorado State University. "To me, this looks like the same people saying the same thing over and over again."
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 01:18 am
Oh, Walter, you know me better than that, I hope. I would never say that you did not give a valid quotation. However, I do hold that the quotation is trumped by evidence from two sources which, I am sure I can demonstrate, are superior in their knowledge and scientific background--specifically, the IPCC and the NOAA.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 06:28 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I know you are solidly on the side of the general consensus being published so avidly out there. I am on the side of keeping an open mind...
Your problem it seems to me is three fold.

You appear not to understand the way science works.

You are not qualified to argue the subject in any detail (and neither am I).

You appear to be letting political/economic considerations cloud your appraisal of science-based conclusions.

I am not "solidly on the side of the general consensus", I am merely observing what the general consensus is. (But at least you admit there is a consensus, so I suppose we are making progress). As for keeping an open mind, I object to the inference that my mind is made up and closed on this issue. Carl Sagan said "Keep and open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out". I'm not a climatologist, therefore I have no option but to give more weight to the general scientific consensus on global warming and climate change than to dissenting voices such as Lomberg, however interesting he may be.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 06:51 am
Quote:
I will begin with point three ASAP. I will show, with evidence that all of Steve 4100's comments are either wrong or exaggerated. I do hope that he will take some time to examine the evidence I post and not, like some others do, ignore my assertions!
Very Happy

I am very much afraid that BernardR is losing touch with reality.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 07:24 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I know you are solidly on the side of the general consensus being published so avidly out there. I am on the side of keeping an open mind...
Your problem it seems to me is three fold.

You appear not to understand the way science works.

You are not qualified to argue the subject in any detail (and neither am I).

You appear to be letting political/economic considerations cloud your appraisal of science-based conclusions.

I am not "solidly on the side of the general consensus", I am merely observing what the general consensus is. (But at least you admit there is a consensus, so I suppose we are making progress). As for keeping an open mind, I object to the inference that my mind is made up and closed on this issue. Carl Sagan said "Keep and open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out". I'm not a climatologist, therefore I have no option but to give more weight to the general scientific consensus on global warming and climate change than to dissenting voices such as Lomberg, however interesting he may be.


No, I am not in favor of letting either political or economic considerations trump what is best for humankind. I am also not in favor of being sheep that just follow the biggest crowd or take the easiest road either. From what I've read and seen, many of that large 'consensus' are people with little or no more expertise than you or I, but have just signed on to something with no knowledge of whether it is or is not correct.

While there are times when it is necessary to act without complete or conclusive data, I don't think this is one of those times yet. I certainly don't think major policy based on incomplete or inconclusive data is wise in this case at least until all the data has been given full attention and consideration. Speaking of politics/ideology, I see too much willingness to reject opposing scientific opinion based on nothing more substantial than that an oil company signed onto it or other similar reasons, none of which have any scientific basis.

For me, an open mind is willingness to at least look at and give serious consideration to ALL the studies, and ALL the data, and ALL the opinions being presented by people who know more about this stuff than I do.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 10:03 am
Foxfyre wrote:
From what I've read and seen, many of that large 'consensus' are people with little or no more expertise than you or I...
But they are not opinion formers or consensus makers. We cant all be experts. Let the experts deliver their expertise free of influence from non experts. Then give the people and their governments the freedom to accept reject or postpone acting on that knowledge. Thats how it should work is it not? OK somewhat idealistic I conceed, but what other course is there other than to let the people who know best have the loudest voice?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 10:09 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
From what I've read and seen, many of that large 'consensus' are people with little or no more expertise than you or I...
But they are not opinion formers or consensus makers. We cant all be experts. Let the experts deliver their expertise free of influence from non experts. Then give the people and their governments the freedom to accept reject or postpone acting on that knowledge. Thats how it should work is it not? OK somewhat idealistic I conceed, but what other course is there other than to let the people who know best have the loudest voice?


No argument there except that I think all voices should be heard before we choose the people who know best.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 10:48 am
of course all voices should be heard within their area of expertise, but it is not for the non-expert to decide who knows best.

We can accept reject or put to one side the considered advice of the experts but we cant employ them to give us their considered advice only to say we never heard it.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 10:51 am
Steve-

What do the experts have to say on cheap flight tickets?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 10:54 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
of course all voices should be heard within their area of expertise, but it is not for the non-expert to decide who knows best.

We can accept reject or put to one side the considered advice of the experts but we cant employ them to give us their considered advice only to say we never heard it.


Okay, we may be very close to agreement at least on process here. I agree that I should not reject the opinion of experts only because their work is funded by or applauded by some wacko environmental groups. And if you agree that we should not reject the opinion of experts only because their work is funded by or applauded by oil or coal companies or similar entities and we certainly should not automatically reject the opinion of experts who are funded by neither, then we can proceed happily together.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 11:02 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I agree that I should not reject the opinion of experts only because their work is funded by or applauded by some wacko environmental groups.


What do you call a "wacko environmental group" as opposed to an "environmental group"?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 12:03 pm
I would answer that Walter if I thought you were sincere in wishing to discuss the subject. But since I think its another setup for you to play your 'gotcha' game, I'll pass. I'm just not in the mood today.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 12:16 pm
Sounds fine for me.

We don't have "wacko" environmental groups here, at least not when they want to take part in discussions, federal/state/local/local hearings, get a voice in the media etc etc.

I suppose, it's the same in the USA.

There has been an announcement in yesterday's Albuquerque Tribune

http://i2.tinypic.com/2d15vh2.jpg

I just wanted to know, if they are wackos ...

But as said, no need to answer.

And be asured that I won't ask you one single question in future!

I'm glad to know that only very few Americans are so as you are.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 12:41 pm
See? I didn't even answer the question and you used the 'gotcha' anyway. But thank you very much for your consideration.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 01:04 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
The evidence is that I QUOTED a report from today's The Guardian.
Further, the evidence is that The Guardian summarised/quoted from new researches.
Walter,
The Guardian, who makes numerous ommission errors, may not be the right place to look for balanced information about climate change.
Anyway, citing predictions that the ocean is warming and MAY fuel more violent hurricanes NOW may seem somewhat ironic. Just as if, in their desire to make headlines, the Guardian forgot to verify basic up to date facts (see graph and excerpt below)

P.S. Klotzbach that you cited, a young and definitely brilliant hurricane specialist (doesn't have yet his PhD but has published in respected peer-reviewed journals) is someone worth reading as to hurricane matters.

"New data shows ocean cooling" (not the only paper).
Quote:
The world's oceans cooled suddenly between 2003 and 2005, losing more than 20 percent of the global-warming heat they'd absorbed over the previous 50 years. That's a vast amount of heat, since the oceans hold 1,000 times as heat as the atmosphere. The ocean-cooling researchers say the heat was likely vented into space, since it hasn't been found stored anywhere on Earth.

John Lyman, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, says the startling news of ocean cooling comes courtesy of the new ARGO ocean temperature floats being distributed worldwide. ARGOs are filling in former blank spots on the world's ocean monitoring system - and vastly narrowing our past uncertainty about sparsely measured ocean temperatures.


A "mediocre" hurricane season at weatherstreat.com :wink:
http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2006/named-storms-climatology.gif
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 01:06 pm
miniTAX wrote:

The Guardian, who makes numerous ommission errors, may not be the right place to look for balanced information about climate change.


I'm no expert to doubt that.

But not only the Guardian but nearly all media reported about that research - even my local paper here.
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 01:08 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:

But not only the Guardian but nearly all media reported about that research - even my local paper here.
Sure, the European mainstream media are hopeless for all things about GW.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 01:18 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Sure, the European mainstream media are hopeless for all things about GW.


Plus more than 250 media in English language outsite Europe (including all major US papers) :wink:

(Out of nearly 300 printed newspapers worldwide I've access to, more than 200 report it - the rest are Sunday papers and weekly periodicals Laughing )
0 Replies
 
miniTAX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 01:49 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Plus more than 250 media in English language outsite Europe (including all major US papers) :wink:

(Out of nearly 300 printed newspapers worldwide I've access to, more than 200 report it - the rest are Sunday papers and weekly periodicals Laughing )

- The law of consensus : "At times of high scientific controversy, the consensus is always wrong."
- Descartes said: "Converging opinion is no guarantee of its veracity. Since the truth is hard to find, it would be surprising the vast majority would discover it before a single man."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Sep, 2006 01:54 pm
You are certainly correct - I only wanted to verify your Guardian-bashing :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 05/17/2025 at 08:20:17