Sunday, November 14, 2010
BY JEFF TITTEL
THE RECORD
Jeff Tittel is director of the New Jersey Sierra Club.
Every renowned scientist believes climate change is real, including those at Rutgers University, Princeton University and the Department of Environmental Protection.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/state/politics/warming_111410.html
The Sierra Club is being as honest as always……..
The “No True Scotsman” fallacy in action. Or does this schlub not know who Freeman Dyson is?
Even if it was true, all it would mean is most of those scientists hadn’t given climate science a thought and just assume that climate scientists have got it right. Most scientists probably couldn’t explain the basics of the climate debate, let alone the stuff that is key to the uncertainty. Like ordinary people they’d waffle on about melting glaciers and how it was obviously warmer than when they were kids.
And of course most sceptics also know that climate change is real.
I just listened to an interview with Dyson, and he takes the high road declaring he really isn’t interested in the details. He just knows the models are wrong and those climate scientists don’t understand science like he does. When he was studying climate in the 70’s, they discovered that plants have a relationship with CO2. and climate scientists don’t understand that. Increased CO2 is good for plants, and the temperature rising won’t have any significant negative consequences.
Boy he sure hit that one out of the park. how could any climate scientist still be an alarmist when this expert explains it this way!
TonyD:
That is the problem. Statements like the one you quoted just go over the heads of the believers. Gardeners and farmers know more about climate than your Climatologists.
and Dyson’s approach to not “bother” with the details is the highest form of scientific analysis.
Boy Einstein could have TOTALLY blown quantum mechanics out of the water if he had had Dyson’s genius.
they are not my climatologists. I read different views, assess the information and make conclusions. Those can change when new info comes in. Not like Dyson, who because of his experience 40 years ago doesn’t need to know anything about climate science today. He believes what he wants to because he knows better.
TonyD:
The only thing that has changed over the last 40 years is the players. There has been no new evidence to support the alarmism only additional fabricated research results.
Come on Mike,
Are you tiring of me? is that all you can come up with? Merely 40 years of fabricated results passed by all the leading scientific organizations in the world.
Now, again please clarify, are they all idiots or all sly conspirators?
That’s such a laughable statement. “blah, blah, blah, —believes climate change is real.”
I’ve never once encountered anyone that doesn’t believe the climate changes. I can only assume they mean scientists that buy into the CAGW dogma. But then that ignores a list that I can only start, Lindzen, Spencer, Christie, Singer, Curry (as of late), ………the list is seemingly endless. Dyson? Yeh, he and Lewis are the only ones. Anyone that cares to look around can see this “consensus” is, was, and always had been a complete and utter fabrication.
Its funny too, even the alarmists can’t agree on what they agree on. Schmidt says tree rings are “uninteresting”. Jones says there hasn’t been any warming for a decade or so, Mann regrets his hockey stick became iconic. Hansen still doesn’t know how to adjust a thermostat. Some say shrinking sea ice is a good metric of GW, others say sea ice growth is indicative of precipitation caused by warming. Some say we’ll flood, others we’ll create deserts, still more say we’ll do both. Some admit to a MWP, while other insist the warming was confined to Europe. I’ve even seen studies that assert placement of thermometers don’t matter when tracking the earth’s temps. Others yet, still toss the word robust around but aren’t concerned about the disappearing thermometers. And the beat goes on.(Sonny and Cher.)
That’s some consensus.
interesting that none of your assertions are necesarily mutually exclusive.
Whereas in the denyblogosphere, so many are. It IS warming. it ISN’T warming. CO2 IS a a factor, CO2 has no effect. Volcanoes make more CO2 than humans, the ice in the Arctic is decreasing but it doesn’t matter because the earth is warming for other reasons. The ice in the Arctic is going to increase soon (according to Steve it already has). There will be cooling. there is Cooling, the warming will continue for awhile and then there will be cooling Cosmic rays, cause the temp changes, other planets are warming so it must be the sun or some other celestial factor. El niño is responsible, there is HIGH climate sensitivity all sorts of things make the climate, there is LOW climate sensitivity so CO2 can’t be causing any warming.
ACC is an actual theory that has predictive value. Over all global temps will rise over decadal periods. Polar regions will get hotter quicker. it will warm more at night. and so on and so on. None of these things are in contention by 97% of climate scientists. THe REASON that deniers are so up and arms about ACC is precisely because it DOES predict things. Can you come up with ONE objective parameter that most deniers share? I mean you can’t even decide if scientists are all idiots or part of a vast conspiracy. All the conflicting assertions by deniers have so many different adherents, that it is pretty much hypothesis de jour and don’t ever critique any criticism of ACC.
First, sis, the only deniers I’ve ever encounter were the reality denying warmists. Secondly, no, there isn’t a singular front for the skeptical community.(Kinda blows that big oil conspiracy thing, doesn’t it?) It’s mainly because there are so many holes in the ACC(is that what it is now?) “theory” that many people engage because they see the errors when it pertains to their knowledge or experience. Please re-read my post to find the mutually exclusive statement. BTW, can you articulate the ACC theory in its entirety? Using the scientific method, a theory must be falsifiable. In order for this to be a theory, it must be articulated and shown to be falsifiable. Else, it is simply some dark fantasy some lunatics invented.
TonyD:
While you may think ACC is a theory. Sadly it is not because a theory is based on a testable hypothesis. since its inception ACC has been based on WAGs and have not yet matured to the testable hypothesis stage. The research into the paleo records are not in agreement. The models are not in agreement. The so called peer reviewed papers that the IPCC reports are based on are both not in agreement and in many cases are not peer reviewed research papers but advocacy groups public relations press releases. The IPCC had to use 22 model runs that did not agree with each other to come up with an average of predictions that did not even agree with reality so they could claim it was consistent with observations that in fact were not observations but model results themselves that had been adjusted to be more consistent with the expected results.
We have models that are adjusted to fit expectations and tested against model results that are adjusted to fit expectations and both are tested by comparing against each other. Circular reasoning but not a theory or even a hypothesis.
Do not tell a modeler their model outputs have predictive value as it tends to upset them and do not tell climatologists that their work has any predictive value as it tends to upset them also. I was censored and banned tears ago for asking about the predictive nature of their claims and was told they provided a range of possible scenarios rather than predictions or even projections. Predictions and projection are related to real scientific research because they can be falsified. Climatology research can not be falsified as any future scenario is covered by the ACC WAGs. That is plural for a reason but that reason might just go over your head.
Thanks for the memory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_cZa_zhlo
That was great! Thanks man! Off to watch some American football! peace.
Climate Change is real. Any one that thinks the climate is a static animal that is the same today as it was 100, 500 or even 1000 years ago is a fool!
The question is – Is Anthropogenic Global Warming real? Or even climate change (for the religious faithful).