Dean's World

I once had a commenter at my place that had a pretty good comment about this. He said

As I alluded to earlier, I think our problem is more of a matter of timing. At the moment we are in the process of an upswing in global average temperatures that correlates with increased solar activity (though of course correlation does not equal causation), the last large downswing was in the 1600s when the little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder minimum when few to no sunspots were observed. At this same time we are pumping the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Now if we had done that 400 years ago to the levels we are doing now there would probably have been no immediate effect. the problem arises since we are doing it now on an upswing. There is a chance that the added increase in warming caused by greenhouse gases is enough to upset the balance of the feedback systems that regulate the cooling of the Earth.

Now, this fellow was just on the edge of WE'REALLGONNADIE!!!! but at least reasonable. But being that the weather man can't accurately predict the weather for next month, I don't see how they can think they'll know what it will be like in 100 years.

Scott, I think my position can best be summarized as follows, when it comes to a scientific debate with political overtones.

1. look at what the scientists are saying
2. look at what the critics are saying
3. see which side is using the peer review system and which is playing to the media.

if point 3 is false, and both sides are using peer review and there is no real consensus, then thats great! I refuse to have an opinion. Unless its my field and I am qualified.

otherwise, i'm with the peer review side. I trust eth experts in a field to be the experts. Because I do on the wholehave a faoth in the scientific process - flawed as all human endeavours are - to be the best of all possible systems.

I know its fashionable to bash peer review, especially round these parts. And I know I am a scientists and biased in favor of it. Still, if any skeptic of the scientific concensus wants to convince me, they need to do it via the channel I respect. Im not dogmatic about HIV or global warming, and hell I actually believe in intelligent design! But if they claim to be scientists, then they need to stop demanding special treatment and play by teh rules that everyone else has to play by.

BTW it should be noted that RC did address the sunspot issue. Conclusion:

the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.

And also the recent ice-core data is pretty stark as well.

Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.

The in-depth analysis of air bubbles trapped in a 3.2km-long core of frozen snow shows current greenhouse gas concentrations are unprecedented.

The East Antarctic core is the longest, deepest ice column yet extracted.

But at this point its kind of poitless for us to argue about the science. Im going with simple trust of the establishment, because thats the same establishment that has served us so well. And if its enemies are the likes of "crazy" Harvey Bialy or "smokin'" Joe Barton, then its doing well indeed.

This graph is one of the most persistently irrelevant pieces of 'evidence' given by the global warming folks. Given a single number, namely the heat of solution of CO2 (which I think is 4.85 kCal/Mol), a college chemistry student can qualitatively reproduce these graphs. CO2 is less soluble in warm water than in cold (as anyone who has opened up a warm beer can testify). So the correlation is exactly the opposite of what these guys imply. It's the warmth that caused the increase in CO2, NOT vice versa. It astonishes me that honest scientists would gloss over this fact. As for the current increase in atmospheric CO2, I have to admit that I'm convinced it's anthropogenic. The order of magnitude increase is right in the ballpark of what we burn annually, and the isotopic composition definitely points to fossil carbon (depleted in C13 &C14)

Charles, I think that what you describe still occurs. I know that there are star reviewers and cliiques in the multiple sclerosis literature community for example. Does that invalidate peer review?

You said that your views were maverick, but that you DID get published. And you seem to imply that excimers didnt pan out after all. So did teh system fail, or did it work?

Cyniciscm is good, because i means that you can play the game and extract eth good without expecting the fruits to be unsullied by human failing. Its the best we got, and it does a good job.

Where i take exception is the extrapolation of those flaws to be an indictment against eth system as a whole.

So in your world, peer review trumps basic science?

E.g. computer models, like any theory, are only to be trusted after they've been verified, but if they've been peer reviewed, then who needs to bother with verification?

I have no idea how you got to this from what I said.

Nor do I see how the example in the second line is even relevant to the first line.

Basic science CAn and IS done with the AID of computer models, because those models take as inputs the basic measurements, they make predictions, and those predictionns are then verofied and validated and fed back in to improve the model. I dont see any evidence at all of what you are implying otherwise.

To quote Mark Twain, "Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything.
Some think it is the voice of God."

agreed that public opinion is the problem. peer review is the solution. And i note that the self-styled critics of science often wage their battles in the field of Public opinion exclusively.

Chris's point #2 is where I think the global warmers fall pretty flat on their faces. Yes, for a theory to be worth anything it must make verifiable predictions whose outcome is unknown. Otherwise it's called a hypothesis. A prediction of what things will be like in 100 years pretty much falls in the category of unverifiable, since nobody alive today will be there to put a mark in a checkbox. A good global warming theory would make predictions at, let's say, 10 year intervals for the next 100 years. That way we could all monitor how close/far-off the predictions were and gain some confidence in the veracity of the theory. The doomsayers don't like this, because they want immediate action, but one thing is true about end-of-the-world theories: you can't name two that ever came true.

"But in the scheme of things, that is a weak and non-scientific argument."

Isn't that Rush L's argument?

I agree that it's pretty weak. It has nothing to do with self-importance to realize that causes can have effects. I'm sure the atoms of a nuke are pretty unimportant in the scheme of things, but put them together in the right way and boom: bye bye city. Rocks can start avalanches, and so on. I think it's easier to stick to the proposition that there may be many many things we don't know about. But among those are undoubtedly ways that our small actions can have huge and disasterous consequences. For all we know, Princeton scientists could right now be performing an experiment in a particle accelerator that will set off a chain reaction that destroys all matter in vicinity of the planet. We have no idea whether something like that is even possible... but yep, we don't know.

The problem with peer review, is the total lack of transparency and accountablility when it comes to funding the research. The ones reviewing the science should NOT be the ones deciding on final funding.

And to say that peer review is so that the mad scientist do not get published or funded, that is censorship and holding science back. Many, discoveries have been made by individuals outside of the "peer" review process.

The climate of the earth is effected by the tilt of the earth, the magnetic field of the earth, the orbit of the earth, the orbit of the moon, the orbit of the sun, the gasses and particles sent skyward by the continuing changing landscape of the earth, the continuing changing plant and animal life of the earth, the conitnuing shower of debris from the solar system, the changing salt content of the oceans....a very robust yet fragil system with many many inputs, many misunderstood or not even investigated feed back loops, and NO models that historic data can be entered into that predict what is happening today, without discounting or ignoring some of the data. Or the research emphazies one set of data, while ignoring all other data that show he is wrong.

The peer review process needs to be overhauled, as it does NOT serve the purpose of furthering science but is being used and abused to further funding of pet projects, regardless of the bad science that is happening.

Global warming is a political football, that man actually has NO control over. Man is NOT that important, or that powerful. Some Pompus sciencists have found that they can get paid for producing inconclusive evidence, ring the bell, get paid, have their buddies say yes they are right, produce more inconclusive evidence while ignoring anyone who says they might be wrong, or prove that they are wrong, for they hold all the power over what science is heard, and what science is funded.

Show me verifiable proof that a 1% rise in CO2 causes an X% rise in global tempature each and every time. At this time there are as many theroies as there are ideas about how the climate of the earth works. NONE proven.

Will the world change, YES, even if man was not here. Is it changing because of man, YES. is that a bad thing, NO in my opinion. For all those that want the status quo, and for nothing to die, and nothing to change, put your head back in the sand and kiss yourself goodbye.

Scott

You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary man could be such a fool.
George Orwell

Since other parts of our system seem to be warming, I lean more toward the Sun as being the major driver here.

For a `popular` treatment, see *Let's look on the sunny side*
"In 2003 a team from Columbia University reported that the Sun’s heat had increased by 0.05 per cent a decade since the 1970s, the point when completely reliable data started to be collected. This would be enough to have a big influence on the Earth’s climate if it were a trend that had continued for many decades. The Columbia team believed that the pattern could be traced back to the mid-19th century at the very least. Others, working with carbon data material, insist that the Sun has been more vigorous in the past six decades than at any time in 8,000 years. It defies reason, surely, to conclude that this would be irrelevant to the climate. Indeed, there is a deep arrogance implicit in the sentiment that if anything on Earth is changing, human beings must be responsible."