Global warming and scientists.

by Forscher 82 Replies latest members politics

• 

  DanTheMan

  Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

  
  

  I have to believe that this is a vast oversimplification of the matter, which makes me wonder if Professor Patterson is a Academia troll, a real "Scholar" in his field.
• 

  Forscher

  Why is a global climate even a political issue? Why does a conservative have to deny it to be a good conservative? Shouldn't a cleaner environment be in everyone's best interest. To deny it is to say that the levels we pollute at are just fine. And why is that? Do conservatives enjoy pollution? If their neighbor throws his trash in their yard, I'll bet they're upset. But if the trucks driving by pollute the air they breath in their house, that's OK?

  
  Not bad JWS. "Why is a global climate even a political issue?" Well, the simplest answer is that liberals have made it political by trying to impose drastic changes that most folks don't want by means of the federal government. They are backed by big money (Soros, guilt ridden old money etc.). On the other hand, there are alot of folks who stand to lose money or see their worlds turned inside-out if such drastic measures are imposed. They are backed by big companies who stand to lose much as well (big oil companies etc.). The problem is that it has become an all or nothing proposition on both ends.
  "Why does a conservative have to deny it to be a good conservative?" You've got me there. Maybe a good conservative can answer that one for you. I suspect that the extreme polarisation may have something to do with it.
  "Shouldn't a cleaner environment be in everyone's best interest. To deny it is to say that the levels we pollute at are just fine." I wholeheartedly agree with you there. where I differ from both extremes is that I want to see changes made. But I want to see them made in a sane manner. We can make those changes in a manner that brings us little or no pain.
  Let's go back to the example I gave earlier of Brazil. In the late 197os they were inthe very same boat we were. During the oil embargo which was meant to wreck our economy and bring us to heal, they were hurt even worse. That woke them up! So, they mandated that within a certain number of years alternative fuels would have to be made available which didn't polute. They also mandated that within a certain number of years a certain percentage of vehicules capable of utilizing those fuels would have to be on the road.
  They had all the same whining from the big oil companies and the big auto makers that we hear every time the issue comes before congress. "Oh! that is impossible! We can't design and build those cars in the time you want! people won't buy those things so there won't be a market for them! Oh! It will cost too much to put in the infrastructure to make the alternative fuel. It will cost more than Gas and people won't buy it!"
  Guess what? It didn't happen that way! The alternatiuve fuel provided was Ethanol (remember how the oil companies tell us they can't do make it in sufficient quantities for it to work?). The car companies not only built cars which could run on the stuff, they built those cars capable of running on either fuel whenever the drivers wants (it sort of makes it where if Ethanol is not avaiable for some reason or not the best for the circumstances, the driver can use Gasoline)! And guess what? The goals were met. And the Ethanol is cheaper at the pump! And the added bonus is that Brazil has reduced its dependency on oil to the point that they can no longer be held hostage by OPEC.
  It was all done in a manner which didn't hurt the Brazilians one bit! We can do it as well if we stop listening to the whining of big oil and the environmentalists and do it in the same manner Brazil did. Our timetable might take a little longer since we don't have the sugarcane surplus those folks had, but it is doable.
  Forscher
• 

  AuldSoul

  All I can say is, I am deeply impressed:

  Dr. Patterson,
  I am not a student of yours, however I have been enthralled by your position opposite leading world figures on the issue of global warming. My initial lay perception that the effect is not in question but the purported cause is very much in question seems largely confirmed by your research. It seemed to rest largely on the same sort of data sets used by Drake to launch SETI and by Sagan to scare the world about nuclear winter, comprised of mostly variables with actual numbers plugged into values that were a complete unknown.
  I was wondering whether you receive research funding from sources known to be heavily funded by oil companies. These companies would, reasonably, have a vested interest in the results of research, but that does not necessarily mean that the results of research that is funded is biased in favor of the funding source.
  Obviously, this is none of my business, so there is no need for you to answer at all. I was hoping you could answer me "No," so that I can state that with a clear conscience. If you choose not to answer, I will not take it as a yes or no and will fully understand your exercise of your right to privacy.
  I applaud your bravery, it is a dangerous thing to face down "consensus science" and to try to make scientists play by the rules of science.
  Respectfully,
  [AuldSoul]

  Dear Mr. [AuldSoul]
  Thank you for you note. Much to the chagrine of those in the much better funded environmental groups (whose sources of funding are never questioned BTW) my funding is, and always has been, exclusively from the governmental sources like the the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS). My research on solar forcing of climate and land use change issues is not of interest to petroleum companies. If you know of a way to tap into that sort of funding please let me know as busy research labs are always under funded.
  All the best
  Tim Patterson

  Wow. He answered an admitted nobody.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  DanTheMan

  I applaud your bravery, it is a dangerous thing to face down "consensus science" and to try to make scientists play by the rules of science.

  Oh, for heaven's sake - so if a scientist believes that GW is happening due to the burning of fossil fuels, he's just following the crowd and not playing by the rules?? Give me a break!
• 

  AuldSoul

  DanTheMan,

  if a scientist believes that GW is happening due to the burning of fossil fuels, he's just following the crowd and not playing by the rules?

  If he is a scientist in a field of study that would make the results of his analysis of pertinent data weighty and if he in fact has data as opposed to models that strongly support his viewpoint, no.

  If he believes it because (1) he hasn't examined any other possible explanation for its vailidity and weighed the degree of likelihood between the two, or (2) he has been successfully prejudiced toward one outcome by popular media, or (3) he has been swayed to adopt the view that is held by the majority of scientists without examining carefully whether the majority view has basis in fact (i.e. can rule out a framework that better explains the entire phenomenon), or (4) he has accepted research funding from environmental groups of sufficient amounts to reasonably prompt him to skew findings, yes.

  Dr. Patterson's assessment of the situation is not related to funding sources, he works for his Uni and his government. Can the scientists spooling out reams of data for environmentalists say the same? Or do we only suspect the funding sources of those who disagree with our viewpoint?

  I asked Dr. Patterson. Even though I thought it was very possible that I would get an answer I didn't like, or no answer at all. Feel free to dig into it and verify or falsify his statement.

  Have you asked the scientists who support human sourced CO2 as the primary cause of global warming for their credentials and funding sources? I don't mind if you call them brave when you ask, after all they are standing opposite the best of news for oil companies (ostensibly). Please let us know what they say.

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul
• 

  Forscher

  Kudos to you AuldSoul!
  Your style gets better all the time!
  Forscher
• 

  DanTheMan

  If he is a scientist in a field of study that would make the results of his analysis of pertinent data weighty and if he in fact has data as opposed to models that strongly support his viewpoint, no.

  May I ask, are there any such scientists in your opinion? IOW, do you think that it's possible for an intelligent, dispassionate, intellectually honest scientist who specializes in a relevant field to come to opposite conclusions as Professor Patterson?

  And I thought that models were based on data, so I don't really understand what you mean in the latter part of your comments I've quoted.

  Thank you for you note. Much to the chagrine of those in the much better funded environmental groups (whose sources of funding are never questioned BTW)

  "Much to the chagrine" - that's pretty antagonistic and sour-grapey sounding, which further confirms my troll suspicions about this guy.
• 

  Terry

  The center of the Earth is extremely hot, correct? My thinking is if anything is going on it is a cooling of the Earth rather than a warming?

  You mention that the center of the Earth is hot--but....you fail to mention the cause.

  The cause is not subject to cooling off: the nuclear materials releasing radiation.
• 

  Terry

  Rather MANY scientist are saying that this is a cycle that the earth has had before. And that we just happen to be living in THAT cycle!

  As far as weather patterns are concerned we are overdue for another ICE AGE!

  Whatever artificial warming man has caused it is slowing the ICE AGE.

  Is that a bad thing?
• 

  AuldSoul

  May I ask, are there any such scientists in your opinion?

  Scientists who are using data instead of models to arrive attheir conclusion that CO2 is the primary contributor to global warming? Models are rooted in data but the projections are pure speculation. PURE speculation. They are 100% representative of the bias of the modeler.

  In my opinion I don't know the credentials and field of expertise of enough of the "overwhelming majority of scientists" that are cited but not named. The opinion of unnamed scientists can't be verified as having validity, nor can their opinion be ruled out of having validity. This is a classic mark of propaganda versus information.

  There very well may be such scientists. I am open to the possibility. No one has ever handed me the name of one such scientist, however, so as far as I know there are none. I welcome learning more names of those intimately involved with the research on the impacts of CO2 on the climate, particularly whether they bothered to rule out any other possible causative factors before latching onto CO2.

  Do you have some names for me to investigate? Or do you only know of a majority of scientists?

  Respectfully,
  AuldSoul