Joanna Nova:
What does a study of 20 years of abstracts tell us about the global climate? Nothing. But it says quite a lot about the way government funding influences the scientific process.
John Cook, a blogger who runs the site with the ambush title “SkepticalScience” (which unskeptically defends the mainstream position), has tried to revive the put-down and smear strategy against the thousands of scientists who disagree. The new paper confounds climate research with financial forces, is based on the wrong assumptions, uses fallacious reasoning, wasn’t independent, and confuses a consensus of climate scientists for a scientific consensus, not that a consensus proves anything anyway, if it existed.
Given the monopolistic funding of climate science in the last 20 years, the results he finds are entirely predictable.
The twelve clues that good science journalists ought to notice:
1. Thousands of papers support man-made climate change, but not one found the evidence that matters
Cook may have found 3,896 papers endorsing the theory that man-made emissions control the climate, but he cannot name one paper with observations that shows that the assumptions of the IPCC climate models about water vapor and cloud feedbacks are correct. These assumptions produce half to two-thirds of the future projected warming in models. If the assumptions are wrong (and dozens of papers suggest they are) then the predicted warming is greatly exaggerated. Many of the papers in his list are from these flawed models.
In other words, he’s found 3,896 inconclusive, subsequently-overturned, or correct but irrelevant papers. What is most important about his study is that after thousands of scientists have pored over the best data they could find for twenty years, they still haven’t got any conclusive support.
2. Cook’s study shows 66% of papers didn’t endorse man-made global warming
Cook calls this “an overwhelming consensus”.
They examined “11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
Perhaps the large number that are uncertain merely reflects the situation: climate science is complicated and most scientists are not sure what drives it. The relative lack of skeptical papers here is a function of points 4, 5, and 7 below. Though its irrelevant in any case. It only takes one paper to show a theory is wrong. Who’s counting?
3. Cook’s method is a logical fallacy: Argument from Authority. This is not science, it’s PR.
The thing that makes science different to religion is that only empirical evidence matters, not opinions. There are no Gods of Science. Data, not men, is the authority that gets the last say (there is no Pope-of-The-Papers). Cook turns that on its head. It’s anti-science. When scientists explain why they’re sure gravity keeps the Earth in its orbit, they don’t argue that “97% of geophysicists voted for it”.
Cook knows this (I do keep reminding him), but he pretends to get around it. Spot the delusion: “Scientists must back up their opinions with evidence-based analysis that survives the scrutiny of experts in the field. This means the peer-reviewed literature is a robust indicator of the state of the scientific consensus.” Cook assumes that scientists opinions are based instantly and accurately, and only on the evidence, as if humans were Intel chips. He assumes that “peer review” is uncorruptible (unlike every other human institution), that two unpaid anonymous reviewers is “scrutiny”, that climate-activist-scientists don’t work to keep skeptics out of the peer review literature, and that ClimateGate never spilled out what really happened in climate science.
Don’t people who do psychological research need to understand the basics of human nature? Scientists can cling to the wrong notion for years — just look at those who thought humans would never fly (even two years after the Wright brothers’ first flight) or that x-rays in shoe stores were safe, or that ulcers weren’t infectious, or that proteins could not be contagious (then came BSE).
4. The number of papers is a proxy for funding
As government funding grew, scientists redirected their work to study areas that attracted grants. It’s no conspiracy, just Adam Smith at work. There was no funding for skeptical scientists to question the IPCC or the theory that man-made climate science exaggerates the warming. More than $79 billion was poured into climate science research and technology from 1989 to 2009. No wonder scientists issued repetitive, irrelevant, and weak results. How hard could it be? Taxpayers even paid for research on climate resistant oysters. Let no barnacle be unturned.
Sheer quantity of abstracts endorsing man-made climate change has increased, but so has the funding.
Over the same era, $79 billion was poured into climate science and climate technology related research.The problem with monopsonistic funding models is that there is little competition. Few researchers are paid to research angles that are likely to disagree with the theory. Volunteers who want to do their own research don’t have free access to journals, may have trouble getting the data (sometimes it takes years or FOIs to get it, and sometimes it never comes). Volunteers don’t necessarily have the equipment to do the analysis, and don’t have PhD or Honours students to help. They also don’t get paid trips to conferences and suffer the impediment of having to devote time to earn an income outside of their research. When they do find something there are no PR teams to promote their papers or send out the press releases.
In the financial world we have audits, in courts we have a defense, in Parliament we have an opposition, but in science we have… whatever the government feels like funding.
In the end, there is no government funding, be it through a grant or institute that actively encourages people to search for reasons the IPCC favoured theory might be wrong.
5. Most of these consensus papers assume the theory is correct but never checked. They are irrelevant.
The papers listed as endorsing man-made global warming includes “implicit endorsement”, which makes this study more an analysis of funding rather than evidence. Cook gives the following as an example of a paper with implicit endorsement: “‘. . . carbon sequestration in soil is important for mitigating global climate change’. Any researcher studying carbon sequestion has almost certainly not analyzed outgoing radiation from the upper troposphere or considered the assumptions about relative humidity in climate simulations. Similarly, researchers looking at the effects of climate change on lemurs, butterflies, or polar bears probably know little about ocean heat content calculations. These researchers are “me too” researchers.
If a conservative government had spent billions analyzing the costs of the failed climate models and the impact of disastrous green schemes, skeptics would be able to quote just as many me-too papers as Cook quotes here. (But we wouldn’t, because analyzing the climate by doing keyword studies — it ain’t science).
6. Money paid to believers is 3500 times larger than that paid to skeptics (from all sources).
Cook seems to believe there are organized efforts running to confuse the public. Is that a projection of Nefarious Intent (NI) coupled with conspiratorial suggestions of mysterious campaigns?
Contributing to this ‘consensus gap’ are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists.
Given that he is confused about what science is, he probably would think people are trying to confuse him when they give it to him straight.
His own personal bias means he is the wrong person to do this study (if it were worth doing in the first place, which it isn’t).
It has all the hallmarks of activist propaganda, not research. Cook tries to paint skeptics as doing it for the money, but blindly ignores the real money on the table. Governments have not only paid more than $79 billion in research, they also spend $70 billion every year subsidizing renewables (an industry which depends on researchers finding a link between carbon dioxide and catastrophic climate change). Carbon markets turn over something in the order of $170bn a year, and renewables investment amounts to a quarter of a trillion dollars. These vested interests depend entirely on a catastrophic connection — what’s the point of cutting “carbon” if carbon doesn’t cause a crisis? Against these billions, Cook thinks it’s worth mentioning a 20 year old payment of $510,000 from Western Fuels? And exactly what was Western Fuels big crime? Their primary goal was allegedly the sin of trying to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact)’ which as it happens, is quite true, except that technically, “global warming” is not even a theory, it’s a hypothesis, something with much less scientific weight.
Does Climate Money matter? Is a monopoly good for a market?
Do you think if you had $79 billion you could get 3896 papers published
This is a terrific article.
The 12th clue:
PROOF right from Cook:
1st sentence:
Conclusion 1st sentence:
I also enjoyed seeing someone else (other than me) note that the ”search method” used by Cook did NOT include key words that would have called up most of the ”other side’s” research articles.
That would be like the IRS not using terms like Tea Party, Patriot and so forth when they were looking for organizations to thwart from raising money in opposition to Obama.
Cook apparently hit a nerve, judging from the number of climate change deniers that are freaking out and trying to discredit his rather straightforward survey.
Cook isn’t attempting to make the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming with this survey. He clearly states that.
The only point Cook’s survey is intended to establish is that the vast majority of experts in the field of climate study actually do believe that:
(1) global warming is a fact; and
(2) human activity has some responsibility for it.
Clearly establishing the fact that this is the prevailing expert opinion is necessary because those who dispute the idea have not only used the media to confuse people about the nature of evidence supporting the claim; they have also attempted to convince the public that the there is no prevailing expert opinion, when, in fact, there is.
Joanne Nova is yet another non-scientist who specializes in science-slanted media presentations. She doesn’t have a single scientific study or paper to her credit.
I’m a scientist (PhD) but I’m not part of that alleged “consensus.” So far I don’t find the evidence anywhere near convincing. But more to the point of this essay. Several years ago I wrote a book, Science Funding: Politics and Porkbarrel, in which I argued that Federal funding was corrupting the American scientific enterprise by giving scientists an incentive to pursue results that supported government policies. I think the state of climate research is an excellent example of this corruption.
@Greg:
How does this support your statement? Last I checked 32.6% was far from a majority.
1. Do you have other evidence to back those two claims you made, i.e. evidence that more than 50% of climate scientists believe in both AGW and that humans are partially responsible, in other words, it’s not the result of cyclical climate patterns, the sun etc?
2. Is scientific law (not theory, big difference) based on majority rules?
Prior to the 50s there was also a consensus in the south that blacks should not be allowed to vote.
@Buffalobob:
Don’t be jealous. Every conservative generation gets their group to demonize and blame for societies’ ills. You’ve got the gays after all.
@another vet, #4:
Joanna Nova’s article has misrepresented Cook’s methodology—specifically, by creating confusion about the sample numbers.
Around 12,000 (11,944) scientific papers were found for the period 1991-2011 that referenced “global warming” or “climate change” in their abstracts. That was the first step in obtaining a relevant sample. The 12,000 were then screened to eliminate papers which expressed no opinion one way or the other concerning human activity as a causative factor. (Papers that simply didn’t deal with the issue the survey was focusing on.) What remained was the study sample of 4,000 that actually expressed some opinion on the relevant question. Of those 4,000 papers, around 97% expressed an opinion that human activity was a causative factor.
Cook’s survey isn’t about the scientific evidence itself. The survey is about what climate scientists believe such evidence suggests. Cook was simply trying to reveal the prevailing opinion among that group of professionals.
Of course not. However, it seems wise to take into consideration the prevailing opinion of trained professionals who have devoted themselves to attempting to understand a particular issue.
If a large percentage of doctors expressed the opinion that a particular medication or medical procedure was unsound in connection with a condition that fell into their specialized area, I would be far more likely to listen to them than to people working outside of that area.
It seems to me that a sizable percentage of the public assumes that human beings can have little or no effect on the biosphere—that anything we might do as a specie is pretty much irrelevant, in the face of the enormity of the natural forces in constant play all around us. I tend to be highly skeptical of that assumption. We seem to be in the process of transforming the entire planet, without giving enough attention to the long term consequences of our actions. It seems to me that there are signs of that all around us, if we only pay attention.
@Greg: The actual problem, fallacy, involves, ”scientific papers were found for the period 1991-2011 that referenced “global warming” or “climate change” in their abstracts.”
See, skeptics or papers that use the scientific method to make points that do NOT prove human-caused warming don’t use those two unscientific phrases in their abstracts OR in the bodies of their research.
Thus most papers that might balance out this are excluded by the very search feature Cook uses!
See:
It is like when the IRS used Tea Party, Patriot or other conservative terms to pick groups to stall from getting their tax-exempt status.
IF they had used ”progressive,” or “occupy” there would have been an entirely different group in their pile.
But they didn’t.
And neither did Cook.
@Greg: We are still talking about 2/3 of the papers not endorsing made man global warming. A far more accurate conclusion is that the majority of the scientists have not come to a conclusion either way. That is a far cry from the AGW crowd’s claim that it is settled science. The scientific method also takes into account ALL empirical data not just data that supports a certain conclusion which the AGW crowd is guilty of. Give me $5 million and I’ll prove to you the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Rather than worry about something we have little control over – the Earth’s climate- perhaps we should focus on things we do have control over like the National debt or putting crap in our food and water supply- pollution, hormones, or otherwise. The earth has been here long before man and has endured far more catastrophes than whatever man can do to it and it will be here long after we’re gone.
@Nan G, #8:
Doesn’t it seem a bit unlikely that academic papers contesting the existence of “global warming” or “climate change” would specifically avoid using terms referring to the very thing that they’re taking issue with?
@another vet, #9:
No doubt it will. All of human history has been less than the blink of an eye compared with the long past ages the Earth has endured, and the Earth has been here less than a third of the time of the known universe has existed. Being human, though, I place great importance on the long-term success of the human enterprise. Everything on this particular speck in the cosmos seems to have been purposefully building up to us. Somebody has made a big investment in a race of talking monkeys. I’m much rather we not blow it before finding out why.
@Greg: If we blow it, it won’t be because of anything related to climate change. It’ll be due to some sort of biological manifestation like an incurable disease man made or otherwise, a natural disaster, or war. Then again, perhaps some other advanced civilization from beyond will get sick of our shit and lay waste ala “Independence Day” or “War of the Worlds”. : )
@Greg: No Greg, real scientists actually get tired of those who are lying to gain more government funds that they actually must say something. Like people here, we let you keep saying those really ignorant things for days and then you finally exceed the limits of our levels of good manners and tolerance levels. Any one who calls themselves a scientist who believes in consensus is not a scientist, but a socialist. Scientific proof, not consensus, determines accuracy of the hypothesis.
@Joseph P. Martino:
Well I’ll be damned…a scientist with a voice of reason. I remember a time when politics and science sought the same thing; the truth. It seems this is no longer the case.
Playing devil’s advocate though, neither side trusts the other. The left will say corporations pay scientist to find in their favor and the right will say politicians and environmentalist pay scientist to find in their favor. No one seems to want the truth.
I’m not sure when science ceased to be science. And when did the scientific method stop at analysis. Why have replications, external review, and data sharing been dropped from the scientific method?
I looked up your book. Why no Kindle version?
@Aqua:
The question I have is why is global warming the exception to all the established rules and expectations around science? Why is a scientific consensus around global warming doubted by so many, and hundreds of thousands of scientists accused of outright deception, in this one area of science alone? The anti-global warming position would be more logically consistent if it did in fact extend to other areas of research, because if there’s a flaw in the system, it would be systemic. But no one is saying that. This is being looked at in a vacuum, while all other areas of research – some by the same groups and individuals – are ignored. Universities and the government obviously sponsor research on many, many other topics. It would take days just to list all the scientific advancements that have come out of US government sponsored research alone. But on this one topic apparently, the world has been turned upside down, and science – the scientific method – no longer ‘works”.
@Tom: When there is empirical data that contradicts a certain theory and it is discarded or manipulated as has been the case with AGW, it raises questions and rightfully so. That is not the scientific method. If there are other theories that utilized the same approach, they should be questioned as well. AGW receives lots of attention because of the impact the “necessary changes” will have on society. Think about all of the hype and some of the claims made. The need to get rid of the internal combustion engine, NYC being under water in the relatively near future, the need to essentially revamp industries and economies (which will naturally be to the economic advantage of those who support AGW) etc. All of it results in more government control over peoples’ lives. Therefore the stakes are quite high as the measures touted to “fix” the alleged problem will heavily impact economies and individual freedoms. To the best of my knowledge, not a single scientist supporting AGW has come out and definitely stated what the EXACT temperature of the Earth should be and exactly how we are supposed to get there and permanently maintain it.
@another vet:
How exactly is the scientific method not being followed? There are thousands of peer reviewed studies supporting AGW. Are you stating that there are flaws in these studies or how they were reviewed?
That’s an illogical expectation. Scientists don’t need to know the ‘exact’ ideal future temperature to identify that temperatures are now rising and that man-made emissions are contributing.
@Tom: Well Tom, peer reviewed studies based on computer models are not following the scientific method. Computer models are supposed to be used in a scientific process to develop a hypothesis that can either be proved or discredited through scientific experimentation or other scientific processes. What all of the AGW crowd is doing is using a consensus of a hypothesis as scientific fact. You and all of you lefties then use they a consensus of a hypotheses and call it scientific fact. That is the and always has been the issue here.
@Randy:Aqua and A.V. Simply put– Are you saying there is not sufficient evidence to warrant the statement “the earth’s temperature is rising?”
@Richard Wheeler: The earth’s temperature has been pretty much rising since the end of the last ice age as it has after previous ice ages which is well before all of these evil machines came onto the scene. As has been shown here before, the temps have flatlined for awhile. If the earth’s climate is warming, there isn’t much we can do about it. If this is a prelude to another ice age as some suggest, there isn’t much we can do about that either. Whatever is going on with our climate- warming or gearing up for another ice age- won’t be definitively known for some time, well after everyone alive today as well as their offspring and probably their offspring are long gone. We are talking about climate, not weather.
@Randy, #13:
That line of thought might be seen as only one of a growing number of conspiracy theories that have appeared in connection with a wide variety of disagreements since extreme political polarization set in.
It’s interesting that career scientists who happen to receive public grant funds to conduct research—either directly from the government or indirectly through academic institutions—and any who are directly employed by various government organizations to conduct pertinent research as part of their jobs, are immediately suspect, while others who are paid by special interest groups having a clear profit-related interest in a specific sort of result are automatically considered to be above all reproach.
This strikes me as very odd. Particularly when some of the latter have a history of running interference for various profit-motivated special interests, or are themselves politically polarized.
No one is suggesting that “consensus” determines the laws of nature. No one is suggesting that reality is established by taking a democratic vote. A consensus only indicates the existence of a prevailing opinion. When a subject under consideration is of great consequence and extremely complex, it’s generally worth knowing the prevailing opinion of professionals who have specifically addressed that subject.
Cook’s survey was intended to determine the prevailing opinion among such a group of professionals. You’d think the poor guy had kicked a hornet nest, from the way a swarm of articles and blog entries suddenly appeared in an effort to neutralize his results. I think that’s indicative of a propaganda strategy. Public opinion has been successfully swayed by the sheer volume of the attacks on anthropogenic global warming, coming from all possible angles at once. That works because the complexity of the scientific argument is beyond most people’s grasp. It’s not like we’re able to sit around at home, think about all of the various factors involved, and run our own computer simulations.
@Tom:
If you were to go back and look at other threads posted here you’ll find that data was manipulated. Remember Climategate? Look at the numbers cited in this article. It says there is 97% plus consensus on AGW when in fact it was only 32.6%. It’s obvious they took the 32.6% added the the .7% that disagreed and came up with the 97% ignoring the 66.4% that didn’t offer any conclusion. That’s cooking the books right there and very dishonest.
In addition, some of those who “consented” apparently did not:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
Perhaps I should have been more clear as to what my statement was intended to show. This is the reason given for all of these new controls etc. they are advocating. If there is a problem with the earth’s temperature and man is responsible for regulating the earth’s thermostat which is the underlying argument, then they should be able to tell us what the exact temperature of the earth should be and how to get it there. In other words, what’s the standard? You have to have one before you can claim there is a problem.
The one pure truth not requiring a consensus is that if you disagree with a prog/troll they will label you with a pejorative. They just can’t resist projecting their hidden bigotry onto those who don’t fall into lock-step with their ideology.
@another vet:
Just so we’re clear, you’re stating that thousands of peer reviewed reports have been “manipulated”, which accounts for the scientific consensus on AGW? Essentially, you’re stating that it’s conspiracy involving thousands of scientists to dupe the general public?
No, actually that’s one bloggers interpretation of someone else’s data. And Cook’s study is hardly the only analysis of the current data and research. Are you familiar with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s assessment reports? http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html
How about the the Climate Change Science Program? http://www.globalchange.gov/resources/reports The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment http://www.grida.no/polar/news/2427.aspx
How do you respond to the numerous (far too numerous to list here) statements by scientific organizations regarding the scientific consensus? http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html
Are those firmly articulated positions the result of data “manipulation” as well, or outright lies? You do realize, I hope, that you’re position is a de facto accusation of conspiracy against thousands of scientists.
Of course that’s not the underlying argument at all. No one has stated that man is responsible for “regulating” the Earth’s temperature. The argument is two-fold: the Earth is warming, and human activity is a contributing factor. Human activity is something we can control. That is where our responsibility lies.
@Greg:
If that were the case, he would state that the consensus was that the majority have no position on the issue not that there is a 97% consensus in AGW. That is a far cry from being told that it is “settled science”. And even if it were true, there isn’t a whole lot we can do about it. The earth certainly won’t be coming to an end any time soon because of it.
@another vet, #25:
Papers that didn’t address the issue weren’t included in the count one way or the other. What would be the logic of including papers in the sample that didn’t even deal with the question? Using keyword search terms was simply a preliminary step in identifying a smaller set of documents that actually addressed the question at hand.
That might be more than can be said for Miami.
@Tom:
That was a good, detailed response. Too bad more from others who post here aren’t like that, but most of them are trolls so that’s to be expected. Some counterpoints:
The percentage of papers at the ISI Web of Science Database supporting AGW has been declining:
http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full
Only 24% of meteorologists support the U.N.’s global warming claim. Grant it, it was a small sample but then again it is more proof that the “consensus” that is touted is not a done deal.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims
The University of East Anglia’s Climate Reseach Center has shown the earth’s temperature hasn’t warmed in 15 years which contradicts what we’ve been told.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/08/21/gullible-warming-a-contrived-crisis-that-is-too-good-to-waste/
And from a previous thread, some of the IPCC’s shenanigans.
Your grida source talks about the shrinking of the Greenland ice sheet. Ooops:
Check out the budget of the USGCRP. They seem to have a pretty good cash advantage to promote AGW.
http://www.globalchange.gov/about/budget-documents
Man has to be responsible in full or in part for regulating the Earth’s temperature if human activity is a contributing factor to AGW. Your statement about how we need to control human activity means that warming is a problem and we need to do something about. So again I’ll re-ask my previous question- What is the ideal temperature of the Earth supposed to be and how do we get it there? There has to be a standard identified before you can say there is a problem. As an example, the temperature of the human body is supposed to be 98.6 degrees. That’s the standard. If a person’s body temperature is 102 degrees, we now have definite, identifiable proof there is a problem. The temperature is 3.4 degrees higher than what it is supposed to be. We can now implement measures to correct the problem such as giving asprin. Once the the temperature gets back down to the standard- 98.6- the problem is fixed and no more measures will need to be implemented. So far, I’ve seen no standard, therefore no specific problem, or an explanation of what type of measures will be needed to fix the problem, how they will be implemented, and how we will know when the problem has been fixed.
@Greg:
So papers that didn’t support his claim were brushed aside? That’s like saying the scientists who disagree with AGW or have no opinion because they believe more research is needed are to be blown off because they don’t tow the party line. That doesn’t sound like science to me.
You’ll have to elaborate more on that one.
@another vet, #28:
Papers that expressed no view either way were not counted either way.
Including those that expressed no opinion either way would be like taking a door-to-door survey of 12,000 homes, asking a particular yes or no question at only 4,000 of them, and then insisting that the additional 8,000 who were not asked should be included in a calculation of the ratio of yes to no answers. That would simply make no sense.
Sea levels are rising globally. The rise since 1870 has been over 9 inches. This is thought to be a direct result of ice melt and the thermal expansion of sea water related to global warming. There’s no indication that the rise is slowing. It’s possible it might actually be accelerating, though that might only be a brief transitory spike in the steady upward trend. In any case, an increase of only 3 feet would put 1/3 of southern Florida underwater at high tide. If the present rate continues, the Florida map will look very different in only 300 years, though serious problems would set in long before then. If the rise is accelerating, trouble will set in sooner.
Miami is around 6 feet above sea level. Maybe the city will become an island. It probably wouldn’t be a good place to be during a major hurricane.
@Richard Wheeler: Yes Richard. There is only conjecture that there is warming or cooling of the Earth. There is no scientific proof.
@Greg: Other cities are in the same predicament as Miami then. Millions of people in this country and tens of millions globally will be at risk. When should we begin evacuating? Doing nothing and letting everyone drown is probably not an option. It goes back to my previous comment that if the Earth is warming there isn’t much we can do about it. If those polar ice caps melt, which has happened before, we’ll all drown. Conversely, if we are headed into a new ice age as some say, there isn’t much we can do about that either. When those glaciers start moving they’ll flatten mountain ranges meaning whatever man has built will scraped to nothing with next to zero effort.
Papers that expressed no view either way were not counted either way
Therefore the 97% claim is misleading.
Joseph P. Martino
yes of course and OBAMA has an interest to fund it,
he want to turn this AMERICA green all over,
he would be able to give the contract and get back from the companies
lots of moneys
@another vet<A.V. Tom's responses are always excellent and well thought out. I would say the same for Greg.
On the right I would commend Mata,Word and Aqua. Aye is missed.
Skooks # has been retired to The Hall. He's like R.R. Don't agree with his politics but admire him as an author,scholar and Marine.
@Tom:
I think everyone agrees that the Earth’s temperature has risen over the past few centuries. Just like AV said, it has done so since the last Ice Age. That is not really the question, the question is what does it mean? The Earth’s climate has a history of doing this. So on one side you have people claiming this is going to cause a 2012 movie like catastrophe. On the other, those that say this is just a normal cycle.
We also now know the Earth’s temperature has remained steady over the last 10 years. So now we no longer have global warming, it’s now climate change. I live just outside of Atlanta, the high on July 4th this year was 75 degrees. First time I can ever remember it being that cool in July. It was not a record. The record low is 53 degrees.
Now to your point. Everyone knows about climategate. The scientists at East Anglia have an email trail showing they manipulated data and refused data requests for peer review (by anyone that did not favor their opinions). Not exactly an atmosphere of trust there. Michael Mann’s hockey stick has been proven to be the result of misinformation, deliberate misinformation.
If anyone brings up a scientist that does not agree with the AGW theory, the left shoots them down if they are not climate scientist. Science is science. A chemist uses the same scientific method that a physicists uses, and a physicists the same method that a climate scientist uses. Any scientist should be able to look at data and determine whether or not the scientific method has been used correctly.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
There are somewhere in the vicinity of 1000 scientists that do not agree with AGW. They are not all climate scientists, but they understand science and the scientific method. Why do you guys not put any credence in what they say?
If the AGW scientist want to be taken seriously by those of us that are not willing to return to the dark ages, open up the data for full peer review. That is the way science works. You want someone that does not agree with you to try to prove you wrong. Bohr and Einstein did it and their work is still being debated.
Richard Wheeler
you said the EARTH IS WARMING,
I think that even if the earth is warming,
it has nothing to do with the global warming,
I mean the SOIL OF THE EARTH, we walk on, not the PLANET EARTH,
IT WAS PROVEN THAT THE WIND TOWER ARE HEATING THE SOIL,
WE CALL THE EARTH OR WE CALL THE GROUND,
WARMING BY MUCH DEGREES UNDER THOSE,
AND SURELY AFFECT THE DEEPER GROUND,
but it’s local not global.
@Richard Wheeler: What happened to Aye?
@another vet: Probably just working hard and raising a beautiful family. Got a feeling he’s watching—-eh. Nobody cuts to the chase any better.
@Richard Wheeler: Okay. I thought he may have passed on or something. I haven’t seen johngalt for awhile. Larry and Hard Right seem to have dropped off the face of the Earth.
another vet
I was thinking the same thing, and also longer gone is JOHN COOPER,
THE LAST TIME HE LEFT NOT HAPPY.
YOU ARE A VERY THOUTHFUL PERSON I notice
BYE
@ilovebeeswarzone: I’m trying to place him.
another vet
he is an ENGENEER, he has peach trees, HE WOULD GIVE HIS KNOWLEDGE ON THINGS,
HE WAS LIKE, I DID LIKE HIM TOO,
@ilovebeeswarzone: I remembered right after posting my last post. Sometimes I don’t remember right away because there have been a lot of posters here.
another vet
he has been gone a long time,
I thought of him on the old POST OF WORDSMITH
YESTERDAY he was in it commenting.
bye