Jonde wrote on May 10, 2008 12:19 AM: 2500 world's best scientist?

http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal-thyself.html

...and this is, in IPCC language, most probably just the tip of the IPCC's slowly melting ice berg.

Mitch wrote on April 18, 2008 06:30 PM: Last year the arctic ice cap melted at record high levels. This is not debatable and is direct evidence supporting climate change on a global scale.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/21/business/arctic.php

Mark Schaffer wrote on April 10, 2008 01:02 PM: Don,

Thank you for extending a tone of civility in an otherwise ad hom forum. There are many reasons civilization needs to move away from fossil fuel use including, as you have stated the finite nature of these fuels. The longer we wait to begin a serious switch the harder it will be to do so. The other reasons include, but are not limited to, NOx, SOx,mercury and other heavy metal emissions, particulates, and long term CO2 with the attendant climate change.

Don Evans wrote on April 10, 2008 10:16 AM: Mark,

I appreciate your manners, and I would be happy to meet with you; however, notice that my argument is not based upon the validity of any study on global warming. It is based upon a growing business case for non-finite fuels.

We possibly share the same vision for future U.S. energy generation, although for different reasons. I appreciate the offer, however.

Mark Schaffer wrote on April 10, 2008 06:14 AM: Don,

In the legitimate peer reviewed science literature I would challenge you to find any study of climate that invalidates the thousands of such studies confirming humanities growing disastrous affect on our common environment. No secondary sources please. I will extend to you the same invite I have given to others to meet with you at Lied Library on the UNLV campus so you can show me such a study.

Don Evans wrote on April 10, 2008 03:34 AM: Mr. Schaffer,

Precisely my point. When there is contention in the scientific community there is no objective "fact"; which requires absolute unanimity amongst the scientific community, built upon the absolute reliability and accuracy of duplicated experiments (as in 100% reliable). Such instances are rare, and are called natural laws, not theories. THIS IS the scientific method. Scientific study is collegial and built by successive experimentation, not ego contests.

In short, we can all site studies until we're blue in the face, it doesn't make any of them "true", in the scientific sense of the word. Anyone who tells you differently is trying to sell snake oil...and why bicker over who's right or wrong when, if the theory proves correct we may limit the existence of our very species? This seems somewhat inane; kind of like arguing about whether or not a gun is loaded or not, all while it's aimed at your head. Do we need science (a deliberately slow and methodical process) to tell us to duck?

The LAWS of supply and demand, however, are the economic science's equivalent of Newton's first law of motion. Finite resources, such as fossil fuels, WILL increase in price as demand rises (such as when China and India start consuming them..like now). There are NO exceptions to this rule. This is the advantage of seeking non-finite fuels (hydrogen, etc.) as an alternative; that is, non-finite resources require the initial FIXED costs of generation, limiting the natural inflation that occurs with finite resource energy generation.

In sum, remember from high school science class, "Derek", irrefutable LAWS are simple and elegant, not complex and debatable (by definition). Most of all, they're based on AGREEMENT, not contention.

Mark Schaffer wrote on April 09, 2008 10:39 PM: While there is very little substantiated fact in Derek D's post below readers will want to note that this:
"Furthermore there is a lot of fact spewing in the manner of "I'm throwing out a fact, so I'm right. Well facts need to be considered in context. Yes the 2500 IPCC scientists are well versed in climate study and represent the best of the best. But 19000 equally well studied climatologists have signed a petition to dispute their claims"
The petition Derek refers to was from a private organization and the signatures were falsified in some cases, not from climatologists for the great part, and fraudulent in presentation as the NAS noted:
The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

Don Evans wrote on April 09, 2008 05:16 PM: "Derek"

A scientist, huh? In what field? If science can positively prove anything, as you assert, then why utilize peer review and/or consensus at all. Scientific fact, if it existed, would readily be agreed upon by all; and yet this hardly ever occurs. Such rare instances are called "laws"..Please, name a few, if you would.

Even the so-called "laws" of the physical world break down in certain circumstances. Indeed, if these laws were 100% reliable, we wouldn't still be working on grand unification, amongst a myriad of other well known scientific "facts". Even engineering in not absolutely correct all the time, and is subject to probabilistic (not certain) outcomes..real scientists (and engineers) know this.

Obviously, however, you've stumbled upon the "True" answers we've all been looking for. A scientist? Please...You've given yourself away by your own ignorance of the scientific method. You're a bigger charlatan than those you are attempting to rebuke for doing the same thing, hypocrite.

Derek D wrote on April 09, 2008 02:45 PM: After reading through the posts, I see a lot of compelling logic from both camps. What sticks out through it all though, is this arrogant, self indulgent attitude, that if you don't believe in GW, or even are rational enough to consider data from both sides, then you are an, idiot, Nazi, rapist, anti-progress, mental-midget moron. So all I can say is: on what basis do you self-proclaimed geniuses dismiss the evidence this article presents. It is a FACT, the trend over the past few years has been COOLING. The trend over the past decade has been a FLAT LINE. For all the banter, finger pointing, and self-stroking, I have not heard any of the "elevated intellectuals" directly respond to this evidence in a manner that still supports their moral high-ground positions that GW is real.
Furthermore there is a lot of fact spewing in the manner of "I'm throwing out a fact, so I'm right. Well facts need to be considered in context. Yes the 2500 IPCC scientists are well versed in climate study and represent the best of the best. But 19000 equally well studied climatologists have signed a petition to dispute their claims. Yes year to year changes tend to be trumped by the overall trend, but what is a reliable trending period is debatable and easily manipulated. The 150 and 300 year trends look dramatically different, yet both are a relative nanosecond in earthtime. Why does the IPCC cling so tightly to the 150 year model? Finally, as a scientist, I am disgusted by those who fall back on the "science never PROVES anything" argument. In a world where we drive cars, use electricity, have doubled our life expectancy and have been to the moon, I'd say science probes plenty.

Mark Schaffer wrote on April 09, 2008 02:17 PM: overinformed,

Please source all these assertions:
Specifically, that everyone runs around claiming a whole load of scientific research has been performed, peer reviewed, is reproducable, accurately, and there is "consensus" of all those involved. More specifically, the claim that some 2500 of the universe's best scientists were a part of the IPCC research and that "The Physical Science Basis" is some sort of be all/end all of peer review. Luckiliy when one actually DOES dig in for some amount of time, we see the flaws in THIS peer review process (not THE peer review process, mind you.)

Further, reviewers of the Second Order Revision were required to justify their change requests. Can't argue there. But who were the editors of the report, where do their loyalties lie, and why (among many other questions) would they tell a reviewer that their comments would be rejected based on a lack of space, in such a lofty document? Not to mention the staggering number of reviewers of the all-important chapter 9?

Read All Comments