It's not enough for scientists to say "I disagree" with published peer reviewed studies on a subject. They actually have to do studies/experiments on their own to back that up in order to have any relevance on a subject outside of Fox News.
April Russo (FForever!),
Steven Perez,
Stephen Mack,
John (bird whisperer),
Big Joe Silenced,
Back to just Joe,
Stephan Planken,
Jennifer Dittrich,
and
imabonehead
liked this
http://www.slate.com/blogs...
- Scoble, Alex Scoble
Seriously, giving review articles and editorials equal weight with actual observational studies and experiments is a rookie mistake.
- Victor Ganata
Citing multiple review articles by the same lead author as evidence that there are lots and lots of skeptics is an example of bad faith and borders on willful deception.
- Victor Ganata
That link is a direct rebuttal of the slate link.
- Eric Logan
Like I've said before, real science is adversarial, not authoritative. If someone had the data to prove that CO2 emissions weren't causing global warming, it would be published, cited and re-cited, and built upon. Overturning existing paradigms is where the fame and fortune is at in science. That all the skeptics have got are arguments by authority in review papers and editorials is very telling.
- Victor Ganata
How many studies do you want ? http://link.springer.com/article...
- Eric Logan
Certainly more than one. And an actual study, not a review article or editorial.
- Victor Ganata
And also, maybe from more recently than 1988.
- Andrew C (see frenf.it)
Ok. I will as soon as I get home, but why more recently than 1988 ? Honest question based on these facts since 1988 we had a decade of .2 degrees warming followed by 17 years of a hiatus. The hiatus was denied for years now there are hundreds of peer reviewed papers trying to explain it.
- Eric Logan
"but why more recently than 1988 ?" Because we've had a lot more data since then, not just in years but in types of data. Whether or not that piece's claims panned out or not, a more recent paper would be more convincing.
- Andrew C (see frenf.it)
Sorry for the multiple posts. I can't wait to turn my iPhone back on I hate this Moto X, but that is a different debate. This is a recent commentary written by Lindzen a former lead author of chapter 7 of the AR3 it gets to the crux of some of the problems surrounding the polarization of this debate. http://www.euresisjournal.org/public...
- Eric Logan
Yes, one could certainly see how Lindzen would see political pressure as the problem rather than himself. ( http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen... ) Also, considering the US had two oil men driving policy from 2000 to 2008, I find it very difficult to believe that "politics" drives completely and totally towards AGW science. The same two fuckers managed to bully the intelligence community into providing enough ginned-up evidence of WMDs to justify a war; you (and Lindzen) are suggesting they couldn't have pushed scientists away from AGW?
- Andrew C (see frenf.it)
Andrew no speed reader could read that fast. He explains oil men's involvement at length in the commentary. It's an ad hominem attack that you just posted. if you don't want to address the actual article I understand. It poses hard questions and real examples of corruption of peer review. It is also well notated.
- Eric Logan
The link in question on this thread claims that there are only 24 peer reviewed studies disputing AGW since 1991 that claim is patently false. On the recovery from the Little Ice Age. http://www.scirp.org/journal...
- Eric Logan
Of course, I just skimmed it. Mind you, his entire claim is "politics is distorting climate science", which is definitely ad hominem.
- Andrew C (see frenf.it)
But yes, my pointing out that he's a clown who actively takes pains to ignore contrary evidence to his theories is ad hominem; I just feel it's kinda relevant all the same.
- Andrew C (see frenf.it)
Lead author clown.
- Eric Logan
So, another review article. OK.
- Victor Ganata
"Lead author clown" - yes. If he makes consistently wrong claims and refuses to accept contrary evidence and can produce no satisfactory evidence of his own for support, that's more than enough reason to think he's a clown.
- Andrew C (see frenf.it)
This peer reviewed paper of his seems prescient in hindsight. Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? http://www.pnas.org/content...
- Eric Logan
LOL, another review paper?
- Victor Ganata
Sorry, I was addressing the ad hominem about Lindzen former lead author now clown. The vast majority of what is commonly referred to as climate science are peer reviewed papers. Show me a properly tested and validated climate model ?
- Eric Logan
Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts. http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...
- Eric Logan
In the Lindzen paper which I linked and was published in 1997 he said this "Indirect estimates, based on response to volcanos, suggest sensitivity may be as small as 0.3–0.5°C for a doubling of CO2" Since 1997 CO2 has increased a little over 10%. While temperature has increased by .05. .05 X 10 = .5. So far he's right the modelers are the clowns.
- Eric Logan