Thread: Science FINALLY runs headlong into Climate Dogma

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

This debate take place on two levels. At the "bench" level, there are always ifs ands and buts. Any true scientist qualifies predictions with all the facts they can find. In my own work, I look for information that seems to contradict the simplest conclusion to test the validity of what the data seems to be saying.

But at the advocacy level, simplicity sells. And the simple message we have been bombarded with (here comes those TPs again) is that the world has a fever and we don't do something about it, the oceans are going to rise 100 feet, we will have extreme weather, dogs and cats will start living together... mass hysteria!

The logical step is not cap and trade, or industrial inhibition, but scientific advancement. Find methods of power generation that reduce emissions. Reward those who contribute to the advance. And knock off the hysteria.

You are dancing around and not responding to what I said. The fact that you are attempting to sort of respond to my posts without quoting them shows your strategy. Please just lets have a discussion. You started it. I responded, and now you are shooting off in all directions. Surely your views are well thought out enough that you can defend them. Please go back to the part whey you discount the views of scientists and instead listen to whoever it is you listen to in forming your views. It is easy to attack the "alarmists" but if you can't explain yourself, that is all you are doing. If you simply want to be a republican cheerleader then we can probably find you some red white and blue pom poms.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

I do not deny climate change or global warming so put that TP back in its holster. But the analysis of causation and weighting is totally missing. They do not have a clue.

"Earlier today, US scientists announced that the recent sunspot cycle that has been making the rounds in news for the past week has offered a conclusion.

It seems the cycle will be entering into a hibernation period, not seen since the early 17th century. This pattern of hibernation could have a cooling effect on the earth and could very well lower the temperatures of the entire globe.

For years, scientists that have been studying the sun and its sunspots had speculated that it would evolve into a period of a solar maximum, wherein there would be a period of intense flares and an increase in temperatures throughout the globe. But recent findings have shown that the exact opposite might happen with the sunspots going into hibernation.

In the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s Solar Physics division, three studies pointed out several signs that definitely point to a possible hibernation. The signs include a missing jet stream in the sun, fading spots on the surface, and slower solar activity near the poles of the sun. All these signs point to the solar sunspots to be slowing down instead of rising.

“This is highly unusual and unexpected,” said Frank Hill, the Associate Director of the National Solar Observatory and its Solar Synoptic Network, “But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.” he added."

All you are saying is "Hmmmm" and wrinkling your eyebrow. For the people that are not properly dogmatized to "get it", go ahead and explain how that supports the title to this thread.

Originally Posted by bluesman

It has never been proven either way. From the perspective of the scientists, they would have to create a model that took all factors into account. The link you provided shows how scientists are objective to the point that they will admit what the do not know. They do not have a 100% locked in opinion because it is really not scientifically possible to create a model that takes all factors into account. However, The ideologs who are 100% sure that global warming is not caused or impacted by human activity are not basing thier views on science but instead a preponderance to be friendly with business OR a religious belief that only God can control the climate. Therefore, If I am going to listen to anybody, it is going to be the scientists and specifically not the idoelogs. If the "alarmists" turn out to be wrong and we wasted money going green, then I can live with that. On the other hand if the "alarmists" turn out to be right, everybody is going to have to live with that; and thier kids and grandkids also.

Is this what you wanted me to respond to? I agree with the bolded part. I am not an ideolog. And to repeat, I have looked into it on my own. The man that first got my attention was Crichton, who is a liberal. I am sure of the bolded part because I have studied the matter enough to know it is true. So we agree. I don't think "going green" has a specific meaning. I think having technology produce fewer emissions makes sense. Crichton said this would happen as a matter of course and that creating an alarm about it was a waste of money that could be used for better purposes. The dogma referred to in the OP was the idea that the planet would continue to warm unless we radically changed our human habits. The dogma implies that mankind's influence on climate is more powerful than natural variability. I would say that the dogma has been proven wrong.

The next, scientific thing to do is to try and WEIGHT the influence of AGW against the sun, earth tilts, cosmic rays and weather patterns and try to quantify AGW's influence.

Know anyone who is attempting it?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9082151

""Is the globe warming? Yes. Is the greenhouse effect real? Yes. Is carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, being increased by men? Yes. Would we expect this warming to have an effect? Yes. Do human beings in general affect the climate? Yes. But none of that answers the core question of whether or not carbon dioxide is the contemporary driver for the warming we're seeing. And as far as I could tell scientists had postulated that but they hadn't demonstrated it.""

Originally Posted by bluesman

All you are saying is "Hmmmm" and wrinkling your eyebrow. For the people that are not properly dogmatized to "get it", go ahead and explain how that supports the title to this thread.

The folks spouting dogma are advocates. The folks pointing out the likelihood of sunspot hibernation are scientists, with all the ifs ands and buts. There are certainly some who wear both hats and their line is to accept the science but to repeat as often as possible (and desperately) that warming will return. Not the attached chart. The ups and downs are pretty regular. When nature says we are going into a down cycle (again) will AGW overcome that change?

http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/u...CO2temp700.jpg

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

IsThe dogma implies that mankind's influence on climate is more powerful than natural variability. I would say that the dogma has been proven wrong.

There is nothing in the link that you provided that shows that conclusion. That is your personal leap. The scientist specifically admittied that we do not know what the relationship is between sunspot activity and our climate patterns. Admitting what is not known is not a conclusion; just part of the scientific process. You have to figure out what you do know and what you don't know and then go from there. It seems like you just want to skip ahead to the point where you can claim some sort of victory. The fact that you are willing to do this shows that your thought process is not scientific. That is the specific reason that I will continue to listen to the professional scientists and not people who let other factors cloud thier objectivity. It is no secret that the right has a dog in this fight and have already locked in on a specific conclusion. Objectivity requires that there be no bias whatsoever. If you were not biased you would not have been misguided enough to try to use the story in your link as a "gotcha" claiming it proves something that it did not even address.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

The folks spouting dogma are advocates. The folks pointing out the likelihood of sunspot hibernation are scientists, with all the ifs ands and buts. There are certainly some who wear both hats and their line is to accept the science but to repeat as often as possible (and desperately) that warming will return. Not the attached chart. The ups and downs are pretty regular. When nature says we are going into a down cycle (again) will AGW overcome that change?

http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/u...CO2temp700.jpg

I am not questioning or making any claim about the link between sunspot activity and our climate. That isn't the issue. The issue that the "alarmists", as you call them, are bringing forward is that human activity can influence the climate. The sunspot influence does not prove or disprove anything about any other factor our cause. I know you want to prove your pre-conceived viewpoint is correct but I am inviting you to keep an open mind and not lock in on an opinion until science catches up with what you would like for them to conclude. I hope you are correct but I am going to wait until the scientific community actually draws a relevant conclusion. Until then, I think we should listen to the scientific community and err on the side of caution. Bottom line is that you want to hold off on worrying about human impact until there is proof and the only time we will have absolute proof is after it is too late to do anything about it.

Hanson is a good example of a scientist turned advocate who has predicted doom and gloom. Gore is a pure advocate. The fact that these folks are quiet while the climate news admits uncertainty IS the point of the OP. Science is front and center and the advocates are backpedaling.

Originally Posted by bluesman

I know you want to prove your pre-conceived viewpoint is correct but I am inviting you to keep an open mind and not lock in on an opinion until science catches up with what you would like for them to conclude.

My pre-conceived point as you put it is the one you have already agreed with. The science is not settled. I want the science to catch up. It hasn't. Alarmists and Deniers are both populated with true believers. So in the absence of proof, a sensible middle ground is the right course.

Originally Posted by bluesman

Objectivity requires that there be no bias whatsoever. If you were not biased you would not have been misguided enough to try to use the story in your link as a "gotcha" claiming it proves something that it did not even address.

Science requires that we be skeptical. That is my bias (and Chricton's). The alarmist must PROVE his case. The Denier must prove his case. The skeptic or agnostic is free to poke holes.

Originally Posted by kmiller1610

My pre-conceived point as you put it is the one you have already agreed with. The science is not settled. I want the science to catch up. It hasn't. Alarmists and Deniers are both populated with true believers. So in the absence of proof, a sensible middle ground is the right course.

Seems like you want to stay away from specifics and talk in gobbley gook generalities so I will accept that to mean that you do not want to address what I have said and just be polite about it and move on. However, it is a fact that the conlcusion you stated in the title of this thread was not supported by the Op.