Prev  1  2  3  

Comments 101 to 116 out of 116:

101. scaddenp at 10:26 AM on 26 May, 2011
     Apirate - of course I am biased. I strongly prefer published science to misinformation. I think current climate theory is strong enough to make bells ring about our CO2 levels. On the other hand, I also decided early what data would make me change my mind and look for it. At any point where a strong prediction from climate science is incompatiable within error bars to observations, then something must give. Strong predictions include: OHC increasing; upper stratospheric cooling; upward 30 year trends; accelerated arctic warming; changing OLR spectra. However the pseudo-skeptic evidence for discrepencies so far are either about claims that the science doesnt make or misrepresentation of observational data.
     0 0
102. apiratelooksat50 at 10:32 AM on 26 May, 2011
     Jmurphy@98 I went to your link at wottsupwiththat.com and found this: "Who are “we”? We are me. To make the creepy rock-pokers work harder I’ll stick to just a first name; Ben. I earned a B.Sc. in Geology in the Eighties at a leading Canadian university. I started an Earth Sciences Master’s degree shortly afterward, but for economic reasons have spent my working life mainly in the Information Technology field as both a programmer and a systems administrator. Politically I believe that governments represent the collective interests of their citizens and should act to both protect and enable them. This is a “librul” perspective." To say that I am at least as vetted as this guy: I earned a B.Sc. in Biology at a leading American University in 1987. I started and actually was awarded my M. Sc. degree in Fisheries and Wildlife Biology at another leading American University in 1991. Since, then I've worked for international based environmental engineering consulting firms, international based manufacturing companies, and started my own environmental consulting company. I'm experienced in modeling for Title V air permitting, and NPDES wastewater discharge permitting. Plus, I am on the forefront for permitting cooling water intake structures in the American Southeast.
     0 0
103. scaddenp at 11:10 AM on 26 May, 2011
     Apirate - I am not sure what your point is. Does wottsupwiththat back his opinion with published or not? That's the important point, not the qualifications. Every one has an opinion, but there is only one reality.
     0 0
104. Marcus at 11:44 AM on 26 May, 2011
     "CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to global warming, which is necessary for life on Earth as we know it." Actually, pre-industrial, Holocene levels of CO2 (260ppm-280ppm) contribute to *The Greenhouse Effect*-not Global Warming as you claim. Global Warming, or Climate Change, is the result of some external forcing that leads to a global energy imbalance. If you can't grasp this key differentiation, then how can you teach all the other, more complex issues to your students? "The burning of fossil fuels and land use practices by humans affects the amount of CO2 entering the atmospheres and oceans." Well, at least you got *this* bit right. "Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon." Only if there is a natural source of forcing that can be identified as being responsible-like changes in insolation or long-term volcanism-neither of which is true in this case. "However, humans are partially responsible for changes in the climate." Actually, given that insolation has been trending *downwards* for the past 30 years, I'd say that humans are *predominantly* responsible for the climate change of the last 30-60 years. "Climate change effects may range from benign to serious and there are some catastrophic predictions." Really apirate? All the *peer-reviewed* predictions are for serious to very serious, with only a few making catastrophic predictions (largely based on the impacts of clathrates). I've yet to see any *peer-reviewed* predictions that suggest global warming will be in any way benign-at least on a *global* level. Seriously, just your claims here suggest that your knowledge of the subject is extremely limited.
     0 0
105. apiratelooksat50 at 12:47 PM on 26 May, 2011
     scaddenp@103 "Apirate - I am not sure what your point is. Does wottsupwiththat back his opinion with published or not? That's the important point, not the qualifications. Every one has an opinion, but there is only one reality." My point was in reply to your compadre JMurphy's post: "Anyone who gives any credence to WUWT as a source of unbiased information (of any sort, let alone scientific), needs to go to WottsUpWithThat now and again, if they want to stay properly informed." If you are going to call me out on the lack of published opinion, then you should have called out wottsupwiththat via JMurphy as well. In the interest of fairness, tell me why you did not call out JMurph on his post about wotts...
     0 0
106. apiratelooksat50 at 12:58 PM on 26 May, 2011
     Marcus @ 104 "CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to global warming, which is necessary for life on Earth as we know it." Actually, pre-industrial, Holocene levels of CO2 (260ppm-280ppm) contribute to *The Greenhouse Effect*-not Global Warming as you claim. Global Warming, or Climate Change, is the result of some external forcing that leads to a global energy imbalance. If you can't grasp this key differentiation, then how can you teach all the other, more complex issues to your students? So, you are calling 260-280 ppm CO2 normal, and anything above that is abnormal and caused by humans. To be "normal" the Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration needs to be within that very narrow range. Anything above 280 ppm is abnormal and leads to global energy imbalance. That is just a start to your post. Please reply if my interpretation of your post is incorrect.
     0 0
107. scaddenp at 13:01 PM on 26 May, 2011
     Hey JMurphy - apparently we are compadres. How do. Apirate. As far as I can see wottsup provides a counterpoint to WUWT disinformation. I didnt express any opinion on whether I thought it was any good, only to ask whether its counterpoint was based on published science. I tackled you over why you thought the qualifications of the person were relevant in any way, because I dont think so. I am arguing for forming your opinions on the basis of peer-reviewed published science not opinion in blogs, unless those blogs are also informed by that science. WUWT is not. Skepsci is.
     0 0
108. Marcus at 14:16 PM on 26 May, 2011
     "So, you are calling 260-280 ppm CO2 normal, and anything above that is abnormal and caused by humans. To be "normal" the Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentration needs to be within that very narrow range. Anything above 280 ppm is abnormal and leads to global energy imbalance." Hmmm, clearly you're not aware of what the Holocene Era is? I did state that this range was *normal* for the Holocene Era-or the last 12,000 years, so anything above that range could be considered to be *abnormal*, especially within the frame of reference of human civilization. Also, given that we had about 25,000 years of CO2 concentrations between 260ppm & 280ppm, & also given that we've had the better part of 1 million years of CO2 concentrations of between 220ppm & 280ppm (between the various glacial & inter-glacial periods) then I'd say it is pretty fair to call this range *normal*, at least as far as human civilization is concerned. Its only been since the industrial era that CO2 levels ever got above 300ppm, & today they're now higher than they've been in at least 30 million years. Then you need to consider the *time-frame* in which CO2 emissions have risen, compared to in the past. Pre-industrial changes in CO2 occurred over a period of millenia to tens of millenia, whereas recent rises in CO2 emissions have occurred in the space of less than 3 centuries, with about 80% of that rise being in just the last 100 years. So, yes, in terms of both levels & speed of increase, its entirely fair to say that anything above 280ppm can be considered *abnormal* & contributing to the current energy imbalance-& that's even before we consider the ratio of the various isotopic fingerprints of the CO2 that's been measured at Mauna Loa over the past 50-odd years. I also pointed out that Global Warming is a completely distinct phenomenon to the Greenhouse Effect-the former is caused by an energy *imbalance* resulting from some change in one or more "external" forcings, whereas the latter is the natural *balance* between incoming & outgoing energy that is meant to maintain our planet at about 33 degrees C warmer than its Black-body temperature would seem to suggest, thus making our planet habitable. Again, if you don't understand all these very basic issues, then exactly how can you teach them to students?
     0 0
109. Albatross at 14:38 PM on 26 May, 2011
     I may have missed it amongst all the obfuscation, but as far I can see Apirate has still not managed to answer the question posed @64..... If Prof Mandia is still following this thread I would like to thank him for all of his efforts.
     0 0
110. Donald Lewis at 15:57 PM on 26 May, 2011
     I found that the parts of this thread that commented on the pedagogy of science were very engaging. Safe to say, IMHO, there is as yet no science of pedagogy, in spite of efforts to create one. On the other hand, whatever ones pedagogical preferences or technology, in any classroom, on any given day, there is a subject. Any sincere teacher will attempt to communicate the advertised subject of the course to the students although, perhaps, in non-conventional ways. However, IMHO, through High School, the goal of a class, whatever the teacher's methods, is typically to establish some level of "cultural literacy" about the subject of the course...especially in science and math classes. For example, action/reaction, oxidation/reduction, r-selection/K-selection, derivative/integral, are all very subtle when considered in detail, but are exactly the kinds of oppositions of which a culturally literate student should be aware If you ever encountered a HIgh School student who could plainly articulate the distinctions among these contrasts, you would be impressed, I imagine. You might also find yourself wondering where they went to school. "A_pirate_looks_at 50" is over the top! For example, I don't believe one can even express the more modern concept of "limit" in the logic of Aristotle. If one grounds ones reasoning in Aristotle, precious little of modern science or math even makes sense. I love Aristotle, but come on! Any pirate looking at 50 who is enchanted by the reigns of Aristotle may perceive the difference between Scholasticism and Science, but has certainly not accepted Science over Scholasticism as a working world view. I mean, let's devote a class to an open debate about how many angels fit on the head of a pin, and walk away thinking the debate actually resolved the issue. The discourse of science has moved on.
     0 0
111. actually thoughtful at 17:50 PM on 26 May, 2011
     Apirate - do you admit to your students your anti-science bias in regards to global warming - or do you pretend you are unbiased? You ARE unbiased - in that you have no bias for or against peer reviewed literature vs. anti-science web sites (WUWT being one of the most famous anti-science sites). I have lived in the American Southeast, Southwest, Northeast and Northwest - only in the Southeast could someone with your admitted problem with science be considered a "science" teacher.
     0 0
112. JMurphy at 00:12 AM on 27 May, 2011
     apiratelooksat50 wrote : "One question with a yes or no answer: Is SKS unbiased? Even more: Question 2: Are you unbiased?" Compared to WUWT (which is what this line of questioning leads from), the response to that first question is a great big YES ! As for the second question, I find it a bit ridiculous, really. I would be perfect if I wasn't biased in some ways but (again with reference to WUWT and AGW) I AM biased against propaganda, misinformation, disinformation, denial and pseudo-science, i.e. I am biased against WUWT and so-called skeptics. apiratelooksat50 wrote : "I went to your link at wottsupwiththat.com and found this... To say that I am at least as vetted as this guy..." Well, good for you but you have completely missed the point of the link to WottsUpWithThat : it is to provide a counter-point to those who believe that WUWT is in any way scientific, unbiased or credible. It highlights the nonsense that can be found there so, as long as the owner of the site has at least a basic science education, it virtually runs itself by merely quoting and linking to WUWT. However, it is also well-written and humorous - even above the unintended humour of WUWT. scaddenp wrote : "Hey JMurphy - apparently we are compadres. How do." Hello, but darn it - our secret AGW coven has been discovered ! Dang those pesky so-called skeptics...
     0 0
113. apiratelooksat50 at 01:58 AM on 27 May, 2011
     Alb @ 109 Check 93. Actually Thoughtful @ 111 "I have lived in the American Southeast, Southwest, Northeast and Northwest - only in the Southeast could someone with your admitted problem with science be considered a "science" teacher." What are you implying about the South? And, I am originally from California, so please desist from your insults. And, I do not have a problem. More than once, I've listed my views on AGW or GCC or whatever label applies these days. We truly aren't that far apart, yet you refuse to see or admit that. And, as far as teaching my students goes, I resent any implications on my abilities or teaching style. It is not as if I have free reign to do what I want. I teach to a curriculum, I am observed unnannounced at least 8 times a semester, and our students take a state mandated end of course exam (of which mine did quite well on). Of the 4 teachers in my district who teach Environmental Science, I was the one chosen to write the curriculum and pacing guide for the next school years AND that document has been sold to other districts in the state. And, before anyone begins to howl in protest at that - my personal views are not represented therein.
     0 0
114. mclamb6 at 02:31 AM on 27 May, 2011
     apirateslookat50--I don't necessarily want to wade into this battle, but my recollection is that in your earlier postings you stated that you had been a "believer" in AGW, but changed your opinion based on the your perceptions of the treatment of skeptics (rather than anything related to the science). That doesn't strike me as very scientific. If my memory is faulty, I apologize.
     0 0
115. sustainable07 at 06:54 AM on 28 May, 2011
     pirate @ 60 Do you understand the qualifications of the National Research Council and that their members are selected the leaders of the American Academies of Sciences? Do you really want to equate their findings and recommendations to any blog, no matter how careful and science-based? Do you understand the peer-review process and how it develops and shapes science, using the scientific method? The peer-reviewed literature is cited extensively in the following report, linked by Prof. Mandia: Advancing the Science of Climate Change (2010) "As discussed in the following chapters, scientific evidence that the Earth is warming is now overwhelming. There is also a multitude of evidence that this warming results primarily from human activities, especially burning fossil fuels and other activities that release heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere. Projections of future climate change indicate that Earth will continue to warm unless significant and sustained actions are taken to limit emissions of GHGs. Increasing temperatures and GHG concentrations are driving a multitude of related and interacting changes in the Earth system, including decreases in the amounts of ice stored in mountain glaciers and polar regions, increases in sea level, changes in ocean chemistry, and changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation events, and droughts. These changes in turn pose significant risks to both human and ecological systems." (p. 19) http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=19 "…In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities." (p. 21-22) On its website, the National Academies describe the origins of the NRC as follows: "In 1916 the Academy established the National Research Council at the request of President Wilson to recruit specialists from the larger scientific and technological communities to participate in that work. Recognizing the value of scientific advice to the nation in times of peace as well as war, Wilson issued an executive order at the close of World War I asking the Academy of perpetuate the National Research Council. Subsequent executive orders, by President Eisenhower in 1956 and President Bush in 1993, have affirmed the importance of the National Research Council and further broadened its charter." http://www.nationalacademies.org/about/history.html
     0 0
116. John Donovan at 06:09 AM on 30 May, 2011
     I previously wrote to "apirate": But the phrase that struck me most of all in your response was the statement "The various science departments at that school are heavily slanted towards support of the AGW theory." I find that wording itself "heavily slanted". How can the faculty be "heavily slanted" if they agree with the current expert scientific consensus? Would we not expect that a science faculty agrees with current scientific expertise? Would you also describe the science faculty there as "heavily slanted" towards evolutionary theory? I find your wording most problematic. Please share the survey data with us as I would be most interested to understand why one college in your area (even considering it is in the southern US!) is noticeably outside the scientific mainstream on any field of science. I can't provide an opinion without more data. I have to add that I am disappointed that "apirate" has so far not only not shared his polling data, but neither has he named the two schools in question, which makes his claims undocumented at best and also without the possibility of being confirmed. But perhaps even more interestingly nor has he explained his "heavily slanted" wording quoted above.
     0 0

Prev  1  2  3  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.