Global Warming

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Pooeypants If the GP has spent several years performing neurosurgery then I would call him a neurosurgeon.What relevance does this have when we are talking about academics from originally different fields, who have been actively researching in their new field for many years? Absolutely nothing, your analogies are simply not valid.No, you made a claim that most climatologist are either in disagreement with the current AGW models or that they are undecided. Therefore, it is your job to provide the body of evidence to support this.

It is not 'my job' to support my opinion any more than it is 'your job' to provide a body of evidence that proves me wrong. I have provided numerous links to authoritative opinions that support my position. You certainly can provide links to opinions that support yours.

My contention has been that I cannot find more than a tiny few climatologists who agree with your position. My opinion is that this should not be ignored by those who want the real skinny on what global warming is all about. The links I have posted point to a number of bonafide credentialed climatologists who disagree with the AGW theories. I challenged you and EnragedParrot to come up with bonafide, credentialed climatologists who agree with your opinions. So far we have one that I provided and an almost one that EnragedParrot found.

I think people who want to be honestly informed rather than foster an ideological position would think that most climatologists disagreeing with the AGW theories should be a critical component of the overall debate.

[rmnunez]

The study of climate change would be an interdisciplinary effort, mathematicians and physicists for the computer models, meteorologists for weather data, and climatologists for its patterns, geographers and geologists for the effects of any climate change.

Experts in these and other studies have disagreed with the primary conclusion of the IPCC most in contention; that global warming is anthropogenic.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Foxfyre The AMA would strongly object to a general practioner performing neurosurgery for several years without the education and certification that qualifies one to be a neurosurgeon.

Yes, they would, which is why I said if the GP had been performing neurosurgery for which he would require said training. But how is this relevant to climatology?

Quote by: Foxfyre I made the claim that a mathematiics expert or geologist without formal training in and a degree in climatology is not a climatologist. That does not translate into anybody not knowing a great deal about climatology or even having some formal education in it. But as a bookkeeper who knows a lot of accounting cannot be a CPA without the proper certification, scientists with training and degrees in other disciplines are not climatologists.

But as I remarked previously, if you're researching in a particular field, especially for a decade or more in some of the cases you must and will learn the science that is covered in a degree. Furthermore, as I also stated early, Climatology degree doesn't cover exclusive modules, does it? Or do Universities have an entirely different department just for them because it is that distinct?

Quote by: Foxfyre Again I am not disputing the qualifications of many different kinds of scientists having the ability to analyze and assess aspects of climate change and offer informed opinions on this. I AM saying that those with the ultimate credentials, the PhDs in climatology, especially paleoclimatology, who have devoted their education and lifes work in studying climate change should not be ignored. And almost ALL of these do disagree with the AGW advocates.

Again, I would like to see you substantiate your latter claim.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Foxfyre It is not 'my job' to support my opinion any more than it is 'your job' to provide a body of evidence that proves me wrong. I have provided numerous links to authoritative opinions that support my position. You certainly can provide links to opinions that support yours.

No, I have yet to see your supporting evidence for your claim that nearly all climatologists disagree with AGW. You've got links showing some sceptics, but how does that represent all the other climatologists?

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Pooeypants No, I have yet to see your supporting evidence for your claim that nearly all climatologists disagree with AGW. You've got links showing some sceptics, but how does that represent all the other climatologists?

It doesn't. But again, disprove it by coming up with climatologists who agree with AGW to the degree that it is being promoted by the IPCC, NAS, and Al Gore? Or even any degree. I've tried. I can't find more than a tiny few.

As for the rest of your observations, I believe I have expressed an opinion on all by now and think it unconstructive to the debate for it to dissolve into another "is too, is not" exchange.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: rmnunez The study of climate change would be an interdisciplinary effort, mathematicians and physicists for the computer models, meteorologists for weather data, and climatologists for its patterns, geographers and geologists for the effects of any climate change. Experts in these and other studies have disagreed with the primary conclusion of the IPCC most in contention; that global warming is anthropogenic.

Agreed, which is why I generally link to informed opinions from journalists who report on the findings of scientists of all disciplines and also report the findings of non-climatologists who have expertise useful to the debate. There are probably easily as many or more scientists who disagree with AGW as those on that very LARGE list that is sometimes used to prove scientific consensus for AGW. The skeptics of course are not given the front page coverage to the extent that the pro-AGW proponents receive publicity.

Because climatology is such a specialized and narrowly defined scientific discipline, most of the scientists in both camps will be scientists of disciplines other than climatology. That does not at all suggest they don't significantly contribute useful informed opinions to the debate.

There are excellent arguments made on both sides. All I have been saying is that I personally am keeping an open mind on the subject, but for now, it is my opinion that the skeptics have the more persuasive arguments.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Foxfyre It doesn't. But again, disprove it by coming up with climatologists who agree with AGW to the degree that it is being promoted by the IPCC, NAS, and Al Gore? Or even any degree. I've tried. I can't find more than a tiny few. As for the rest of your observations, I believe I have expressed an opinion on all by now and think it unconstructive to the debate for it to dissolve into another "is too, is not" exchange.

No, I never contended that some climatologists were in disagreement with the IPCC and all the major scientific institutions in the world. But you made the claim that most of them do, and in this forum, if you make a claim then you must back it up.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Pooeypants No, I never contended that some climatologists were in disagreement with the IPCC and all the major scientific institutions in the world. But you made the claim that most of them do, and in this forum, if you make a claim then you must back it up.

I must back up a claim that I haven't been able to find more than a very few climatologists who support AGW theories? Surely you jest. I have provided numerous links to opinions by bonafied credentialed climatologists who disagree with most of the AGW theories and have stated that I have looked for those who agree with them with little success. That, my friend, is backing up my claim.

You on the other hand have apparently refused to read any of the links I have posted--at least you have not commented on their content in any cmprehensiveway--you have refused to accept my challenge to find climatologists who agree with AGW suggesting that you are pretty sure you won't be able to find many if any either, and you appear to be far less interested in having a discussion on the pros and cons of global warming than you are interested in discrediting me. (To back up that claim I'll simply refer you to the last several pages of this thread.)

Now where is your proof that any claim made on this forum must be backed up? Seems that would be extremely limiting but that is your claim. Please back it up for my education so I will know that expressing opinions from my own knowledge, experience, and expertise is disallowed.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Foxfyre I must back up a claim that I haven't been able to find more than a very few climatologists who support AGW theories? Surely you jest.

No, I stated very clearly. You keep repeating that most climatologist do not support the IPCC etc. So where is that proof? For example, a position statement signed by the majority of climatologists or released by a climatologist society etc.

Quote by: Foxfyre I have provided numerous links to opinions by bonafied credentialed climatologists who disagree with most of the AGW theories and have stated that I have looked for those who agree with them with little success. That, my friend, is backing up my claim.

No, that just shows that some climatologists are in disagreement, I have never denied that.

Quote by: Foxfyre You on the other hand have apparently refused to read any of the links I have posted--at least you have not commented on their content in any cmprehensiveway--you have refused to accept my challenge to find climatologists who agree with AGW suggesting that you are pretty sure you won't be able to find many if any either, and you appear to be far less interested in having a discussion on the pros and cons of global warming than you are interested in discrediting me. (To back up that claim I'll simply refer you to the last several pages of this thread.)

That's because I don't accept your claim that just because a researcher isn't of straight climatology background, that his/her conclusions and research by default is always superseded by one who is.

Quote by: Foxfyre Now where is your proof that any claim made on this forum must be backed up? Seems that would be extremely limiting but that is your claim. Please back it up for my education so I will know that expressing opinions from my own knowledge, experience, and expertise is disallowed.

I did not state that expressing an opinion requires external source, but if you make a statement that isn't common knowledge/fact then it is customary for you support that. Just like if you wrote a scientific paper/essay/lit. review; commonly accepted scientific facts do not need references but stuff that is often contended or relatively new will do. Message any of the moderation staff if you are unsure, that is how we do debate here.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Pooeypants No, I stated very clearly. You keep repeating that most climatologist do not support the IPCC etc. So where is that proof? For example, a position statement signed by the majority of climatologists or released by a climatologist society etc. No, that just shows that some climatologists are in disagreement, I have never denied that. That's because I don't accept your claim that just because a researcher isn't of straight climatology background, that his/her conclusions and research by default is always superseded by one who is.

Nor have I said that anybody's opinions are superceded by anybody else. What I have said that any intelligent debate intent on arriving the the best truths re AGW would consider the opinions of those with the greatest expertise in the field of climatology which would be the climatologists. I don't find the opinions of many, if any, climatologists included as pertinent in most of the arguments supporting AGW. Why do you suppose that is?

I did not state that expressing an opinion requires external source, but if you make a statement that isn't common knowledge/fact then it is customary for you support that. Just like if you wrote a scientific paper/essay/lit. review; commonly accepted scientific facts do not need references but stuff that is often contended or relatively new will do. Message any of the moderation staff if you are unsure, that is how we do debate here.

No you said anybody making a claim must back it up on this forum. So back up your claim. According to you it isn't my job to dispute your claim but it is your responsibility to back it up. Please do so. (Actually I'm being kind by giving you an easy one here. I could go back and pick up any number of statements you have made and demanding that you back them up, but I don't find that particularly useful in having a friendly discussion on any topic. Perhaps you get my point?)

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Foxfyre Nor have I said that anybody's opinions are superceded by anybody else. What I have said that any intelligent debate intent on arriving the the best truths re AGW would consider the opinions of those with the greatest expertise in the field of climatology which would be the climatologists. I don't find the opinions of many, if any, climatologists included as pertinent in most of the arguments supporting AGW. Why do you suppose that is?

I'll ask again, do you have the evidence to support your claim that most climatologists are in disagreement with the IPCc?

Quote by: Foxfyre No you said anybody making a claim must back it up on this forum. So back up your claim. According to you it isn't my job to dispute your claim but it is your responsibility to back it up. Please do so. (Actually I'm being kind by giving you an easy one here. I could go back and pick up any number of statements you have made and demanding that you back them up, but I don't find that particularly useful in having a friendly discussion on any topic. Perhaps you get my point?)

If you ask any regular member of these forums, they will tell you the same thing. I have only ask you to justify one particular statement with external evidence. This is entirely consistent with what I have said in my last post.

[Foxfyre]

[QUOTE=Pooeypants;445586]I'll ask again, do you have the evidence to support your claim that most climatologists are in disagreement with the IPCc?/QUOTE]

Just the evidence I have already given you. Most people would think it sufficient. I'm really sorry that you don't.

If you ask any regular member of these forums, they will tell you the same thing. I have only ask you to justify one particular statement with external evidence. This is entirely consistent with what I have said in my last post.

Oh then asking somebody else is sufficient back up for a claim? Well then, I will ask you to ask any climatologist whether most climatologists agree with the theories of AGW (If that climatologist is Heidi Cullen, I would recommend that you ask for names of climatologists who agree with AGW and then please share that list with me because I would really like to know who they are.) Or ask any of the AGW skeptics who have looked into this matter who have posted on the forum. Gee, if I knew backing up a claim was that easy, I could do it for just about anything couldn't I?

I've only asked you to justify one particular statement with external evidence too.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre Then I suppose you are willing to acknowledge that some of those guys you think so much of and who have used the hockey stick theory (which you say doesn't exist) religiously in their arguments to support global warming were just talking through their hats?

...
I don't know what you're asking here.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre Oh and EnragedParrot, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source by those who do good scholarship. For instance, from more reliable sources: Gavin Schmidt He received a BA (Hons) in Mathematics from Oxford University, a PhD in Applied Mathematics from University College London and was a NOAA Postdoctoral Fellow in Climate and Global Change Research. He serves on the CLIVAR/PAGES Intersection and the Earth System Modeling Framework Advisory Panels and is an Associate Editor for the Journal of Climate. He was cited by Scientific American as one of the 50 Research Leaders of 2004, and has worked on Education and Outreach with the American Museum of Natural History, the College de France and the New York Academy of Sciences. He has over 50 peer-reviewed publications. RealClimate » Gavin A. Schmidt Schmidt has actually been a climate modeler rather than a climatologist, and that would be suited for a mathematician which he is. (Or are you saying he isn't a mathematician too?) A fellowship in climatology would give him some expertise that most of your guys can't claim, but he is not a climatologist. James Hansen B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa NASA GISS: James E. Hansen Another mathematician and therefore perhaps a climate modeler at best.

Both of those men have spent their entire careers studying climate science. They have authored dozens of articles in peer reviewed publications on climate science. I'm sorry, Foxfyre, but nothing you can say is going to convince me that these guys aren't climate scientists.

The accuracy of the models by both of these guys have been pretty much shredded by other experts, however.

I am completely unconvinced from our discussion thus far that this is the case.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Foxfyre Just the evidence I have already given you. Most people would think it sufficient. I'm really sorry that you don't.

Please quote the appropriate passage which supports your claim. It should be very easy if, as you claim, it is all in your links.

Quote by: Foxfyre Oh then asking somebody else is sufficient back up for a claim?

I see you're not very apt at applying common sense.

Quote by: Foxfyre Well then, I will ask you to ask any climatologist whether most climatologists agree with the theories of AGW (If that climatologist is Heidi Cullen, I would recommend that you ask for names of climatologists who agree with AGW and then please share that list with me because I would really like to know who they are.) Or ask any of the AGW skeptics who have looked into this matter who have posted on the forum. Gee, if I knew backing up a claim was that easy, I could do it for just about anything couldn't I? I've only asked you to justify one particular statement with external evidence too.

No, know it's your turn to be intellectually dishonest. I think you know full well why a debate relevant statement, as opposed to a forum mechanic statement can be justified differently. Please don't feign that you are confused or misunderstood me because I made it very clear just a few posts earlier. I see that you are very adept at diverting the debate and have little doubt that you'll answer my request for a reference to your debate relevant claim.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre Enraged Parrot said But he works in earth sciences. According to you that makes him a climatologist. Or is it only those scientists of whatever discipline who agree with you on global warming that qualify them as climatologists? Please clarify you criteria for what you will consider to be a climatologist. (Since you apparently rejected my definition that was taken from a rather authoritative source I thought.)

A climatologist is, simply, a scientist actively doing research in the field of climate science, who publishes their research in peer reviewed scientific journals.

Monckton falls well outside of this definition. He has no experience in climate science research, and, as far as I know, no experience in any sort of scientific research. He has never published a single research article in a peer reviewed publication. He doesn't even have a degree relevant to the study of climate, he has a degree in journalism, so that fully excludes him from anyone's definition of a climate scientist.

Fair enough. So if there are any conservative connections, the source is automatically disqualified despite the accuracy or peer review of the information provided or the credentials of those providing it.

There's a bit more than a "conservative connection" in this case. The SPPI is an offshoot of Frontiers of Freedom, and was funded by ExxonMobil.

I don't know where you got the bit about this "disqualifying them," and I suspect you simply made it up. I mentioned this fact to counter your claims that they "boast some heavy scientific credentials." Also, I'd just love it if you could point out to me which of their articles are peer reviewed.

Fair is fair. If conservative bias is disallowed, the so is liberal bias and that eliminates your almost a climatologist Gavin Schmidt.

No bias is disallowed. The devil himself could fund climate science research for all it would matter. Results in science simply aren't for sale to the highest bidder.

No, the reason I think the SPPI has no credibility is because almost everything they put out is, well, wrong.


----------------
Aaaanyway, I'm still waiting for that evidence that most Climatologists do not accept anthropogenic global warming theory. Telling me it's all in your links doesn't help your case because none of your links ever mention how many climate scientists accept the theory. You made the claim, now the burden of proof falls on you to prove it. I don't need to waste my time trying to disprove something I don't even believe yet.

[Foxfyre]

I gave you evidence to convince all but the most brain washed and prejudiced EP. If you choose not to look at it that's your prerogative.

Otherwise I prefer not to engage in any more 'did too, did not' sophomorish exchanges. If you would like to discuss conflicting views in any objective way, I would be interested in that.

[rmnunez]

The IPCC is the first and only international scientific community promulgating a consensus, scientists don't usually work that way (its unscientific). So it would be hard to come up with a list of members of some other scientific panel disputing the IPCC, just indvidual scientists in disagreement. Then the argument is reduced to comparing the disagreeing scientist's credentials, while the consensus is waved about to suggest any disagreement is just an isolated freak.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Foxfyre I gave you evidence to convince all but the most brain washed and prejudiced EP. If you choose not to look at it that's your prerogative.

Ok, Foxfyre, ok. I'm brainwashed and prejudiced. That's the only reasonable conclusion to all of this.

Otherwise I prefer not to engage in any more 'did too, did not' sophomorish exchanges. If you would like to discuss conflicting views in any objective way, I would be interested in that.

Thank Gods. So, now that were done with the stupid stuff, what objections do you have to anthropogenic global warming theory? I'd be interested in hearing them.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Pooeypants Please quote the appropriate passage which supports your claim. It should be very easy if, as you claim, it is all in your links.I see you're not very apt at applying common sense. No, know it's your turn to be intellectually dishonest. I think you know full well why a debate relevant statement, as opposed to a forum mechanic statement can be justified differently. Please don't feign that you are confused or misunderstood me because I made it very clear just a few posts earlier. I see that you are very adept at diverting the debate and have little doubt that you'll answer my request for a reference to your debate relevant claim.

I don't misunderstand you at all. You wish to demand from me what you are unwilling to do and want me to believe that is valid debate. It isn't. It is nonsense that would be considered childish and amateurish in a formal debate.

And as I believe I have done what is considered acceptable on any other forum to defend my point of view on this, I will choose at this time to not engage in further 'did too/did not' exchanges and will look for people who are not of the 'gotcha' camp and who actually wish to discuss the issue of global warming.

Have a good day.