Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[goferrarigo 0]

My money is on:

• Asteroidal impact
  
• Next ice age
  
• Fossil fuels are running out
  

What about:

[*] The Black Holes from CERN (where scientists are getting death threats )

[Max Mosley 2]

Mauritania

Exxon-Mobil Wait, dammit, that's not a country. Or a science academy.

That's alright Maure, time will tell and then <effects Spanish accent> Murray, Oli and Cav will be our beetches

Any time Chris!

That's what puts me off, even a shallow examination every single link posted by our friendly Mauritanian and friends leads to lies, misstatements and blatant attempts to mislead people.

Yeah.

[cavallino 2]

Another expert, how much fun we are going to have.

So, can you back your claim or is it no more than your regular bullsht?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/richard-glover/...0121499123.html

So my good fellow, we're still talking about the New Zealand fellow aren't we. Well where do I start? Here's the rather instructive link you gave us.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...mpact-on-temps/

An incredible feat, he has managed to include every single cliche that so called 'skeptics' love to use.

So he starts with:

In some parts of the world temperatures are climbing on average, and in some areas they are dropping. Warming is not occurring everywhere at once and hence

[maure 1]

My money is on:

• Asteroidal impact
  
• Next ice age
  
• Fossil fuels are running out
  

I would say the last one has best odds. They will be able to take on the much hated "extreme capitalism" we oftentimes hear them rambling on...

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Now, it is rather obvious, that the author is either being deliberately obtuse, or, he hasn't really bothered to understand what is meant by global warming, which certainly isn't 'every place in the world will get equally warmer'.

So what is the official definition then? The pro GW camp seem very happy to base their assessment of global warming on a network of temperature sensors that are anything but global.

[maure 1]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/richard-glover/...0121499123.html

So my good fellow, we're still talking about the New Zealand fellow aren't we. Well where do I start? Here's the rather instructive link you gave us.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...mpact-on-temps/

An incredible feat, he has managed to include every single cliche that so called 'skeptics' love to use.

So he starts with:

Now, it is rather obvious, that the author is either being deliberately obtuse, or, he hasn't really bothered to understand what is meant by global warming, which certainly isn't 'every place in the world will get equally warmer'.

I have read a lot of work from people who are noted, acknowledged experts in their own, unrelated fields and have taken stands about global warming, usually against the consensus. And they tend to use the kind of language that is used in the first paragraph of the link above, stating information that at best may be advanced enough to be included in a high school geography textbook.

I think they are suffering from a common failing, one problem is that people who are good at their fields and are used to dealing with that get used to being right. However outside their area of focus, they may be no better than a lay person, though their intelligence and logic / deductive skills carry over, it is not enough to instanteneously jump the huge gap in experience compared to the real experts. What has been happening in the GW debate is these voices, by the fact that they are authorities in misc. technical/ scientific fields, are given a voice by the press and lay people - me and Murray for example will instanteneously know what someone who has published about paper and pulp technology would have specialised in, but that might not be obvious to everyone.

Then there is the common sense factor and the bicycle shed effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_of_the_bikeshed) - as soon as people see dialogue on something they observe everyday, they assume that they are automatically qualified to comment on it. Read this link for an interesting study on 'psychology is common sense' - http://www.spring.org.uk/2008/03/why-psych...ommon-sense.php. And the first paragraph gives that impression, it can be summarized as 'the sun rises every day, the seasons come and go, and I observe that, therefore I am qualified to comment on the issue'.

Anyway, I digress. Carrying on:

Now that's such a stunning misleading simplification, it rather proves the points I made above. The earth's climate has gone through rather drastic changes in the past, which are obviously not driven solely by changes in insolation.

Ok, again, we've read this so many times - I'll just give a link

http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11638

But even without the above link, the way he arrives at the 5.53% figure is just bunk, especially the implication that if there is any change, humans are merely responsible for 5.5% of it.

Anyway, time permitting Iwill come back to this, although from a cursory examination I see the same oldlines.

Your desperate necessity to clumsily misconstrue the reason why I posted that link (despite my precise explanations) is enough in and of itself to have me laughing at your sad rendition of the "truth" from the very start. Thank you.

Let us remember where you got lost. You attempted to discredit this guy on account of his curriculum. Let's see yours. I await smiling.

Once we get past the minor hurdle of inspecting your list of publications (I will not doubt it exists and is in the hundreds... since there is no limit to fantasy or applicable measure for those that don't understand the first thing about academia), and only after such an inspection by the local expert non-experts is carried out, we can start listening to what you "might" have to say about GW and whether or not you actually have the capacity to discern what makes sense and doesn't, who is right and who is wrong, and so on.

Of course, please make sure that your field of expertise and voluminous published research sits squarely on the GW or, by your own dismisal of everyone else, you will be forced to continue hearing my laughter...

[cavallino 2]

Funnily enough, I have exactly the same number of published papers as this chappie on climate science.

[cavallino 2]

So what is the official definition then? The pro GW camp seem very happy to base their assessment of global warming on a network of temperature sensors that are anything but global.

Source? Before I bother replying to it..

[Oli 1]

Sorry Muzza, Oli whilst the debate was entertaining and some useful things came out, I'm bored of it now and its all pointless as you are not listening.

When some of you guys eventually wake up and see the emperor's new clothes Maure and I will be drinking from our Pina Coladas with pineapples flown in specially (causing lots of CO2 emissions) and eating our lovely CO2-unfriendly meat kebabs off our charcoal barbeque....

And I will be doing exact the same, as I do most weekends. The difference is I won't have to do it with Maure......

[Oli 1]

Funnily enough, I have exactly the same number of published papers as this chappie on climate science.

Indeed. I love the idea that publishing papers on unrelated subjects makes you an expert. I loved it so much I asked my brother, who has had several papers published, to comment on climate change. His view was that it seemed quite sunny outside.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Indeed. I love the idea that publishing papers on unrelated subjects makes you an expert. I loved it so much I asked my brother, who has had several papers published, to comment on climate change. His view was that it seemed quite sunny outside.

I love the idea that publishing papers on GW makes you an expert - what I have witnessed on this forum (and generally) is academic arrogance. I see this every day - I work as a senior manager in a world-leading university and the arrogance is scary. It is the intellectual equivalent of comparing willy-sizes.

I don't have a degree, have published no papers yet my knowledge is expert enough that I have had a queue of organisations as august as British Library, National Gallery and the Board of Siemens seeking my advice. I even drove several missions to Brazil liaising at ambassador level and dealing with one of the Brazilian cabinet ministers. Multinational organisations have invested millions and changed their business strategy based upon my advice - does my lack of qualifications/papers make my judgment wrong? Yet according to your measures - I am not an "expert". Another example- My brother who left school at 16 with two exam passes to his name is an expert on weather - he studies it every day as a personal hobby and without hesitation can talk far more knowledgeably about weather trends and average temperatures for most of the large cities globally. This for me makes him an expert, yet he never even went to high school.

My point is that you, Muzza and Cav need to open your minds a little more. What matters more to me is that when someone publishes views/a paper:

- They do so with good scientific rigour (I do not see this in all pro GW work)

- They are objective (and are not just following the crowd)

- The readers do not throw out their opinion because they don't appear to be "expert" - how do you know what experience/knowledge they might have?

Frankly I would welcome people from other disciplines producing papers on GW - let's get economists and engineers more involved - you never know they may produce a few surprises.

[cavallino 2]

I love the idea that publishing papers on GW makes you an expert

That's a nice non sequitur to what Oli said. As I have said before the problem is experts in other fields who come out with their views, and are then paraded as experts as our friendly Mauritanian attempted to here. It's not that a paper and pulp guy decided to study climate science and produced some original publishable research. He just rehashed a whole bunch of ideas, and according to our fr. Mrt. his view means more than a lay person's view because he has over 200 publications in a completely unrelated field.

- what I have witnessed on this forum (and generally) is academic arrogance. I see this every day - I work as a senior manager in a world-leading university and the arrogance is scary. It is the intellectual equivalent of comparing willy-sizes.

I would love to entertain you with stories of what I have witnessed from non academics in a university, the incompetence is scary. But that's a story for another day..

I don't have a degree, have published no papers yet my knowledge is expert enough that I have had a queue of organisations as august as British Library, National Gallery and the Board of Siemens seeking my advice.

About?

I even drove several missions to Brazil liaising at ambassador level and dealing with one of the Brazilian cabinet ministers.

Irrelevant.

Multinational organisations have invested millions and changed their business strategy based upon my advice - does my lack of qualifications/papers make my judgment wrong?

You really should read the post I wrote in reply to SMauron earlier. I don't see why you are bringing up your career, I am sorry to put it bluntly, but it doesn't interest me and is not of the least relevance to the discussion. You've evidently gained experience in whatever you work with, and used it well. That doesn't make you qualified to comment on climate change. Not even to form an opinion that isn't based on research produced by experts working in the field.

Yet according to your measures - I am not an "expert".

You're not an expert on climate change. Not remotely.

Another example- My brother who left school at 16 with two exam passes to his name is an expert on weather - he studies it every day as a personal hobby and without hesitation can talk far more knowledgeably about weather trends and average temperatures for most of the large cities globally. This for me makes him an expert, yet he never even went to high school.

Does he? Has he tried sending his original work to a journal? Sounds like he has memorized a bunch of data, I used to memorize train timetables as a kid. If I am wrong, tell me more about what makes him an 'expert' on weather, beyond memorizing a bunch of data. I am not saying that you need a relevant degree to know about the field, but you have to have something to show. I know people who have not studied IT, who don't have a degree in computing and are very much experts. However, they have produced original output that is comparable to professionals in the field. Has your brother done that?

- They do so with good scientific rigour (I do not see this in all pro GW work)

- They are objective (and are not just following the crowd)

Now you are talking absolutes, so obviously you'll find something to pick on. By and large, from all the work I have seen on GW, there is very little to complain about.

- The readers do not throw out their opinion because they don't appear to be "expert" - how do you know what experience/knowledge they might have?

If you want to speak from authority, you should have credentials to back it up. Doesn't have to be letters after your name. But you need work to show it.

That said, in pure sciences, you don't commonly see people without an academic background in the relevant field coming up with original work. That is because you need a lot of grounding, years studying the fundamentals before you can even think of producing original work. Physics is such a field. Climate science probably is too, but I know a lot less about it. Let me put it this way, if you said your brother was an expert in Physics without having gone through university, I would be inclined to laugh it off.

Frankly I would welcome people from other disciplines producing papers on GW - let's get economists and engineers more involved - you never know they may produce a few surprises.

Without formal training, I doubt if they'll produce any such thing..

[maure 1]

Funnily enough, I have exactly the same number of published papers as this chappie on climate science.

In other words, you haven't published a single academic paper in your life and have no clue whatsoever what it takes to have +200 of them in your curriculum.

No surprises here.

And I will be doing exact the same, as I do most weekends. The difference is I won't have to do it with Maure......

Al Gore has surely been doing it for years, passing the bill on to the rest of us, and fooling the gullible into believing they are at fault...

Is it with him that you spend most of your weekends?

Indeed. I love the idea that publishing papers on unrelated subjects makes you an expert. I loved it so much I asked my brother, who has had several papers published, to comment on climate change. His view was that it seemed quite sunny outside.

You should listen to your brother. He's been telling you what we've been saying all along.

The joke, of course, is on you. After all, it is you guys who need to discredit others while entitling yourselves with the right to evaluate who is right and who is wrong. Honestly, you don't realize how foolish you look. More so, because of the idiotic conclusion you've reached that an academic has less capacity than you goofs to judge the matter because of his field. It simply shows how clueless you all are. But it is, indeed, this gullibility of yours what has gotten you into trouble in the first place and what makes you guys so amusing. No complaints here.

I love the idea that publishing papers on GW makes you an expert - what I have witnessed on this forum (and generally) is academic arrogance. I see this every day - I work as a senior manager in a world-leading university and the arrogance is scary. It is the intellectual equivalent of comparing willy-sizes.

I don't have a degree, have published no papers yet my knowledge is expert enough that I have had a queue of organisations as august as British Library, National Gallery and the Board of Siemens seeking my advice. I even drove several missions to Brazil liaising at ambassador level and dealing with one of the Brazilian cabinet ministers. Multinational organisations have invested millions and changed their business strategy based upon my advice - does my lack of qualifications/papers make my judgment wrong? Yet according to your measures - I am not an "expert". Another example- My brother who left school at 16 with two exam passes to his name is an expert on weather - he studies it every day as a personal hobby and without hesitation can talk far more knowledgeably about weather trends and average temperatures for most of the large cities globally. This for me makes him an expert, yet he never even went to high school.

My point is that you, Muzza and Cav need to open your minds a little more. What matters more to me is that when someone publishes views/a paper:

- They do so with good scientific rigour (I do not see this in all pro GW work)

- They are objective (and are not just following the crowd)

- The readers do not throw out their opinion because they don't appear to be "expert" - how do you know what experience/knowledge they might have?

Frankly I would welcome people from other disciplines producing papers on GW - let's get economists and engineers more involved - you never know they may produce a few surprises.

I have published academic papers. Architects build, I publish. Both are hard work but there isn't any magic. What I can tell you about my profession is that in order to publish a single paper (if it is worth the paper it is written on), you have to be well acquainted with hundreds of others to begin with. Few are excellent, some are good, most don't amount to much and, understand this, not many of their authors can be considered experts.

In all truth, to speak of academics as "experts", in general, is a layman's appreciation. I suppose if I had not spent decades doing what I do, I might also be mesmerized by big words such as "scientist", I might even deify "academics". But I know many of both, I know the work of many of both, and, to be honest, I am unimpressed.

Yet, despite of my opinion of academia, you can scan the entire thread and you will never find one of my posts attacking a colleague. The goofs around here that so happily dismiss what doesn't fit their beliefs should take notice.

[Oli 1]

My point is that you, Muzza and Cav need to open your minds a little more.

Perhaps, but when most of your arguments against the science I was attempting to explain started with the word "Bollocks" it didn't exactly fill me with confidence that this was going to be much of an objective argument. Now apparently I'm your "beetch".

Academic arrogance? Quite right too, if this is the best that you can manage.

[maure 1]

Perhaps, but when most of your arguments against the science I was attempting to explain started with the word "Bollocks" it didn't exactly fill me with confidence that this was going to be much of an objective argument. Now apparently I'm your "beetch".

Academic arrogance? Quite right too, if this is the best that you can manage.

It was you who wrote:

I love the idea that publishing papers on unrelated subjects makes you an expert.

So either you have published papers in related subjects or, by your own words, what the heck are you "attempting to explain" that is not bollocks?

Meanioni got it right and, for your benefit, you should pay attention to his words of caution instead of going on and on about something that, you yourself, claim not to have a clue on. Unless, of course, you and only you can "attempt to explaion" while lacking the knowledge of whatever it is you consider an "expert"...

Simple stuff to comprehend. They are, let's not forget, your very own words.

[AleHop 0]

Like it or not GW papers are not very different from those HOAX we receive every day. A mix of truth, lies, imagination...

[spitfire 0]

In all truth, to speak of academics as "experts", in general, is a layman's appreciation. I suppose if I had not spent decades doing what I do, I might also be mesmerized by big words such as "scientist", I might even deify "academics". But I know many of both, I know the work of many of both, and, to be honest, I am unimpressed.

Yet, despite of my opinion of academia, you can scan the entire thread and you will never find one of my posts attacking a colleague. The goofs around here that so happily dismiss what doesn't fit their beliefs should take notice.

Wise observations we could all learn from.

[Oli 1]

It was you who wrote:

I love the idea that publishing papers on unrelated subjects makes you an expert.

So either you have published papers in related subjects or, by your own words, what the heck are you "attempting to explain" that is not bollocks?

So what you're saying is:

"A" causes "B". Therefore without "A", "B" is not possible.

This is why I haven't bothered responding to you before this. All your posts are riddled with logical fallacies. Claiming an academic background is not enough when you come out with drivel such as this.

[Quiet One 15]

In all truth, to speak of academics as "experts", in general, is a layman's appreciation. I suppose if I had not spent decades doing what I do, I might also be mesmerized by big words such as "scientist", I might even deify "academics". But I know many of both, I know the work of many of both, and, to be honest, I am unimpressed.

Yet, despite of my opinion of academia, you can scan the entire thread and you will never find one of my posts attacking a colleague. The goofs around here that so happily dismiss what doesn't fit their beliefs should take notice.

Wise observations we could all learn from.

Actually, not. Just another dialectical pirouette.

As Cav pointed, GW was tried to be refuted by means of an argumentum ad autoritas. That means resorting to the authority of somebody to enforce an opinion. It is a logical fallacy, of course, for no matter how important the authority quoted is, isthe logic reasoning which counts. However, in real life, authority has some weight. If Stephen Hawkins says something about naked singularities, I will tend to believe him more than if James Allen made the same comment.

They quoted James Allen.

When that was obvious, they resorted to yet another fallacy: argumentum ad hominem. It means attacking the person who utters the opinion instead of the opinion itself. Somehow, they tried to compare Cav's and Oli's qty of papers against the pulp guy. You may notice that the quantity and/or quality of papers are totally irrelevant, for no matter how many million papers the pulp guy issues, he will still be as qualified as me who only know about toilet paper.

When that was refuted, it came a loop the loop of sorts: "bah, academic and scientific degrees are overrated". And then again "Oh, but I am a big important academic and I won't attack my colleagues". If you really want to argue about all this, my own humble non academic non scientific opinion is: as in all orders of life, you will find good academics and bad academics. Glad there are so many of them, so "consensus" plus time (yes, "consensus") is the way to elliminate the fringe theories from the working ones.

You see any relevance in all this? Nope? Neither do I. Oh, but this thing I can promise: we will hear someone laughing. And come up with a non-sequitur (which means an argument that is not related to the matter at hand and does not actually rebute the proposed one).

Argumental fallacies are things we should all learn from. (And yes, this post was a non-sequitur itself)

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

If you want to speak from authority, you should have credentials to back it up. Doesn't have to be letters after your name. But you need work to show it.

Cav your posting is either deliberately obtuse or you have misconstrued. I am not claiming to be an expert on GW. The whole point of my post is demonstrated by your comment above.

Academic arrogance.

My point is that I do not judge a person by their papers, more by the strength of their arguments. I would rather have one rigorously produced, thorough paper, based on accurate data from an engineer or economist on GW than 10 that have been produced by so-called GW experts who have dozens of papers to their name.

This may sound like heresy to you, but I find it amusing that you think that academics do not recycle other people's ideas - remember, I work in a world-leading university. I am also aware of how funding and convention shapes arguments.

And what is a GW expert anyway? Are you seriously telling me that there is even one person in the world who understands all of these?

• Meteorology
  
• Geology
  
• Fluid dynamics
  
• Atmospheric chemistry
  
• Turbulence
  
• Solar fluctuations
  
• Cosmic rays
  
• Impact of clouds
  
• Ecology
  
• Economics
  
• Global wind flows
  
• Climatology
  
• Vulcanism
  
• Sociology
  
• Politics
  
• Chaos theory
  
• Human geography
  

As to really understand GW and its impacts you need to understand all of the above, their impact upon the climate and interrelation.

Experts? Pah. All I see is people with theories about some aspects of the above.

[Oli 1]

You only have to be an expert on the topic you're addressing. Somebody whose job it is to measure and analyse solar activity doesn't need to have any understanding of ecology, economics, politics, sociology etc.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Actually, not. Just another dialectical pirouette.

No, Andres that's not quite right.

Every time one of the GW sceptics (for want of a better phrase) has posted information - the GW supporters have resorted to one of two tactics:

• Slamming said academic by belittling their experience/knowledge. This is pure, bloody arrogance. My earlier comment which Cav twisted/misconstrued was to try to make the point - not to judge a book by its cover. You may well slag off Mr Pulp, but and here's the point - what if he presents a well-reasoned argument? Just because he is not a PhD in meteorology does not mean that he cannot have an opinion and even if he does rehash other work (as is commonplace in academia), if he presents his argument correctly, lucidly and using good data, so damn what? I note that whenever Cav, Oli, Muzza have gone on the attack that they have ignored the subject matter- conveniently side-stepping the point. e.g. NASA fiddling with data....
  
• Slamming the poster - just look at the attacks I (and the others) are getting now for daring to express an opinion. I may disagree and say "bollocks" but I have never belittled the poster. Fine, carry on I am a big boy, I can take it!
  

I am not an expert on GW, but I do have a scientific background and frankly I am appalled that the scientific community and those who profess to have some knowledge on the subject around here can overlook:

• Iffy, made up and fiddled-with data
  
• Factors being left out of the models
  
• High levels of uncertainty about influences and outcomes - the margins of error are enormous
  
• Scientific debate and comment that goes against the grain
  

If this was any other walk of life (e.g. medicine), now way in a million years would Governments and the public be spurred into such action on the basis of something so vague and error-prone.

And I come back to three points:

• I have already outlined the predicted outcomes based upon IPCC data and so far have yet to be convinced by any argument that we are in great peril and that the actions currently being proposed are well directed. According to the outcomes, we will live longer, be richer and have more food. The only negative outcome is the possibility of sea-level changes over a range that is very wide....
  
• The glacier melt data in Greenland as appears to be commonplace assumes the worst case scenario of never before observed levels of glacial acceleration, sustained over long periods of time
  
• How anyone can claim to be an expert on our climate is beyond me. No-one understands it and until they do, this is all guesswork, influenced heavily by trends and availability of funding
  

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Perhaps, but when most of your arguments against the science I was attempting to explain started with the word "Bollocks" it didn't exactly fill me with confidence that this was going to be much of an objective argument. Now apparently I'm your "beetch".

Academic arrogance? Quite right too, if this is the best that you can manage.

Tut Oli, low blow, You know as well as I that "most of my arguments" do not start with "bollocks".

In fact for that I will say: Bollocks

And as for being my beetch - that was a little humour, we need some of it around here.....

[Quiet One 15]

No, Andres that's not quite right.

[blah blah blah bollocks blah]

Nah, just kidding. I guess you and I will never quite agree, but I give you that you are trying to make an argument from your side and I appreciate that. I will reply to your post in full later...I am...kinda waiting for someone more attractive than you right now

[Oli 1]

Tut Oli, low blow, You know as well as I that "most of my arguments" do not start with "bollocks".

In fact for that I will say: Bollocks

And as for being my beetch - that was a little humour, we need some of it around here.....

Perhaps, but you are the one complaining that you are being "slammed" for "daring to express an opinion". You can't have it both ways.

Just for giggles I looked through the first five pages of posts (couldn't be bothered to do any more). I couldn't find anywhere where I criticised a legitimate argument on the basis that it came from a "non-expert".