Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters

James Schrumpf wrote:
Quiet, "Randolph M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting
rage.

James Schrumpf wrote:
Quiet, Jeffrey Davis <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting rage.

James Schrumpf wrote:
Quiet, Jeffrey Davis <jd_home@xxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm transmitting rage.

leinbacker wrote:
On Mar 2, 6:09 pm, James Schrumpf
<jaspammenotschru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quiet, "Mark Stahl" <s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- I'm
transmitting rage.





"James Schrumpf" <jaspammenotschru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in messagenews:Xns98E6F3D65176Fjaschrumpfadelphiane@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101293.html
http://tinyurl.com/yv3qbx
The Climate-Change Precipice
By David Ignatius
Friday, March 2, 2007; Page A13
The scientific debate about whether there is a global warming
problem is pretty much over. A leading international group of
climate scientists reported last month that the evidence for
global warming is "unequivocal" and that the likelihood it is
caused by humans is more than 90 percent. Skeptical
researchers will continue to question the data, but this isn't
a "call both sides for comment" issue anymore. For mainstream
science, it's settled. * * *
This is so wrong from a scientific viewpoint it's unfunny.
In your considered scientific opinion, what's wrong with it?
That "The scientific debate about whether there is a global
warming problem is pretty much over," and that "For mainstream
science, it's settled."

It's still going strong in the journals, even if the skeptics
are tarred with the "holocaust-denier" brush.
which is sad since science can't advance without skeptics and
debate.
Ridiculous. Science advances by testing hypotheses. NOT the same
thing as skepticism.

Note please: skepticism that is just rote and mechanical is no
more skepticism than it's a bottle of rum. Doubt to be meaningful
has to actually point to something that is unlikely.


How about the fact that Mars and Earth are experiencing "global
warming"? The southern icecap has shrunk continually over the past
three years:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.
ht ml

"In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions
revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole
had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo
Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence
that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes
in the sun.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the
warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with
the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said."

* * *

Of course, global warming advocates feel otherwise (from the same article), AND manage to misquote him:

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's
Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most
recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his
dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such
as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's
climate and virtually no influence on Mars. "

* * *

Except that he doesn't. He said that "Man-made greenhouse warming
has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in
recent years"; nothing there about "dismissing" the greenhouse
effect that keeps Earth warm in the long run.

It's this _insistance_ that we _know_ the cause of current warming
trends -- which may have ended, actually -- which flies in the face
of science's usual pace of make hypothesis -- test hypothesis --
derive model -- generate theory (to put it simply).

What hypotheses have been made and verified? What trends have been
predicted and measured? None that I've seen mentoned in the MSM. I've seen lots of measurements of ice cores and C14 in trees or
whatever, but the short time scale we've been working on (the last
30 years?) preclude any real long-term measurements of climate
cycles.

Merely making a hypothesis is not science; making a _falsifiable_ hypothesis is. So tell me: what evidence would falsify the
"mainstream scientific opinion"?
A fair question. The discovery that CO2 doesn't trap heat. That
would do it.

What would ever convince you?

No, it's known that CO2 is a GHG, that's not being argued. The hypothesis seems to be that human-originated carbon output is causing
global temperature increases. If you'd like to propose another, I'll
listen -- but don't quote the actual givens and pretend those are
what's being discussed.

What would convince me are studies showing direct correlations
between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures over several climate
fluctuations in the geologic record. Can you point to any?

Which hypothesis would that falsify?


That is what would convince _me_. Davis is being very evasive about what would falsify AGW for _him_. He keeps twisting what I write and pretending astonishment at it, rather than explaining what could possibly convince him that AGW is a failed hypothesis.


I understand that. But just a couple of posts ago you were talking about hypotheses and falsifiability. I'm wondering *why* that would convince you. What's your current hypothesis, and how would that falsify it? To be up front, I don't think you have a hypothesis, much less a falsifiable one. I think you're being a contrarian.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
    ... warming problem is pretty much over. ... group of climate scientists reported last month that the ... recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." ... what evidence would falsify the ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
    ... warming problem is pretty much over. ... group of climate scientists reported last month that the ... recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." ... what evidence would falsify the ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing
    ... but that doesn't say anythihg about global warming. ... If you'd ever done any real science, ... initialised to the observed state and none of the climate states in the ... Then we were warned by the Club of Rome,supported by large numbers of scientists, that we would run out of natural resources in our lifetimes. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT - More Possible GW Indicators
    ... Climate Prediction Center in Camp Springs, ... Even with global warming we can't keep the Pacific from ... Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Op-ed writers should just shut up about scientific matters
    ... The scientific debate about whether there is a global warming ... climate scientists reported last month that the evidence for ... recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
Loading