Re: Cosmic rays and global warming

Robert Grumbine wrote:

In article <ELqdnYy6Z52DlwHbnZ2dnUVZ_vy3nZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
dkomo <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Robert Grumbine wrote:


In article <pan.2007.07.16.16.26.10.475644@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mark Isaak <eciton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 08:54:44 -0600, dkomo wrote:



Robert Grumbine wrote:



[...]
Do you also call evolution v. creationism warring camps? If so,
ok. If not, why the difference?

Support for evolution is overwhelming. So creationists to me are just a bunch of religious crackpots. With global warming, the situation is different.

Not so. About three years ago, someone published a brief article in
_Science_ saying they did an exhaustive survey of articles on climate
change published in atmospheric science journals. The number of such
articles which expressed doubt in anthropogenic global warming was zero.
(Sorry, I don't remember the reference.)


Naomi Oreskes, _Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change_, Science, vol 306, p 1686, 2004. DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618

The score was 928 to 0, based on articles published between
1993 and 2003 and listed in the ISI database with keyword 'climate change'.

She concludes:
"Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

[trim]

OTOH:


One of the hands is holding a straight flush, and you offer up
a 7-high nothing?

Seriously, Mark referenced and I cited a study by a scholar, published
in a professional science journal, which examined the professional
scientific literature on the topic at hand.

In response you offer up the Discovery Institute's list of 'scientists' who 'challenge' evolution? Oh, sorry, the Oregon
Institute of Science and Medicine petition project. Even you
note it is opposition to _Kyoto_, and not the science on climate
that they are 'opposing'.


I had misgivings about mentioning the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which sounded to me like a bull*** organization, but it was an integral part of the whole paragraph I quoted and dropping the OISM would have been akin to quote mining. The important section of the quote was about the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals survey, which I noted with some interest you conveniently dropped. All those "12,000 environmental practitioners [who] have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy" probably don't know much about climatology anyway, right.

You might learn more about the science if you looked for sources
on the science, rather than policy.


I plan to look at both. The convenient aspect about news stories is that they can "light up" (to use a sports metaphor) salient parts of the scientific issues, and it becomes easier to decide whether the news story or the scientific issue has merit. This can save countless hours over poring through scientific papers written in arcane language comprehensible only to specialists. In the long run some of these papers are as useless as many of the news stories, but far more time consuming.


--dkomo@xxxxxxxx


Then again, you might also learn more about the science on the
topic if you paid attention to folks who study the topic rather than,
say, anesthesiology. See notes on the petition by Halpern,
starting with, say, <2551c44c.0203221159.67c99883@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Josh worked through the A signatories. The OISM petition does an even better job than the DI of avoiding people working in the field:
1 Anesthesiology
1 Biology and Bioethics, publishes on the ethics of abortion
1 Biophysics
1 Cell Biology
2 Chemistry (theoretical Physical, ret.)
1 Civil Engineering (water resources)
3 EE (comp. arch., comp. sci., robotics, devices
1 Geology (paleo.)
1 Materials Science (metallurgist)
1 ME (forest fires)
1 Operations Research
1 Orthopedics
1 Periodontics
1 Physics (particle)
1 Psychology
1 Prof. of Science who was a co-founder of the Creation Research Society
1 Aeronautics Engineer (AIAA Fellow)
2 Biologist (wildlife, botanist
2 Business Consultant (software
4 Chemist (Texaco, candy, polymer, laser ablation )
1 Chiropractor
2 Civil Engineer (concrete
3 Computer Engineer (software
1 Dentist
1 Editor (deputy Science,)
1 Electrical Engineer (data trans.
1 Environmental Engineer (wastewater, health&safety P&G)
2 Executives (VP Gen. Dyn. Aeronautics, CTO Internet)
1 Extension Agent (horticulture
3 Medical scientists
1 Materials Scientist (coatings)
1 Mathematics educator
1 Osteopath
2 Physicist (medical)
2 Physician
1 Program Director (NCI/NIH)
2 Software consultant
1 MCI local services director


This, and a newspaper series.

Why are you _avoiding_ scientific sources?


Also on t.o. relevance, note up there the co-founder of the Creation
Research Society. I didn't know about him, or Roy Spencer (who turns out to be a YEC also), when I observed many years back the
overlap between YECs and denialists.


.

Loading