Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Topics of a general nature regarding snowsports, which don't easily fit into one of our other Liftlines categories. This is also the place to post Letters to the Editor.

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby EMSC » Mon May 19, 2014 11:21 am

Marc_C wrote: don't understand the peer review process of scientific journals


I'm pretty certain 99+% of those who quote 'peer reviewed' don't have any understanding of what it really means either. It's a far less compelling statement of quality than the masses think it is for starters.

Tony has it right:
Tony Crocker wrote:Science is not determined by consensus in any case. It is determined by actual results validating a theory.
User avatar
EMSC
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:54 pm
Location: Front Range of Colorado

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby Tony Crocker » Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:40 pm

A good summary of both scientific and policy issues:
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.ca/2013/03 ... hange.html
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9803
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby EMSC » Tue Jul 29, 2014 2:07 pm

A bit slow around the boards lately so I'll toss this 2012 item one out there:

A bit biased source, but if their assertions about the study and its recommended communication strategy are true, then yikes, right into Orwell's 1984 we go... talk about politicizing an issue.

The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/
User avatar
EMSC
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:54 pm
Location: Front Range of Colorado

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby Tony Crocker » Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:27 pm

The above doesn't surprise me much. The Tesla Motors forum, which one might assume would be both scientifically literate and lopsidedly "true believers" in imminent climate catastrophe, in fact has a fairly balanced and lively range of opinions on the subject. Even Patrick can't claim these posters are toadys of the oil industry. :lol:
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9803
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby Marc_C » Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:56 am

-marc
User avatar
Marc_C
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:32 am
Location: A Sandy place south of a Great Lake

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby Tony Crocker » Tue Sep 23, 2014 12:09 pm

I have no doubt that worldwide the CO2 emissions are at the high end of what had been projected. This of course makes the flat temperatures of the past 15 years even more problematical than if CO2 emissions had been more moderate.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9803
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby Geoff » Sun Sep 28, 2014 9:47 am

Tony Crocker wrote:I have no doubt that worldwide the CO2 emissions are at the high end of what had been projected. This of course makes the flat temperatures of the past 15 years even more problematical than if CO2 emissions had been more moderate.


It may be that all the particles in the air, mostly from massive Chinese pollution, are reflecting as much solar energy back out to space as the CO2 blanket is retaining. As China installs pollution controls on coal-burning electric plants, that effect might diminish. The Pacific Ocean is also an enormous heat sink. It will take a long time before it warms enough to mitigate that effect.

I think that man is impacting climate change. I just think the models aren't accurate enough to understand the degree of the impact or to predict temperature changes. Since it's so unknown, the safest course is to try to minimize pollution. The ironic thing is that the only viable medium-term solution to CO2 emissions is nuclear power plants. The same people protesting CO2 emissions will violently protest building nuclear power plants. I don't care how many windmills and solar panels you deploy, they don't do doodly-squat compared to generating 100% of our electricity from nukes.
User avatar
Geoff
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: Killington, VT

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:34 pm

Geoff, they are not interested in energy. IMHO it is unlikely that humans have any real effect on global climate, except making cities warmer and local effects from land use changes. CO2 has changed from 300ppm to 400ppm over the last >100 years. It is likely that not all of that is from humans, maybe even only a small % is.
What we do know for sure is that climate science is very little about science and mostly about politics. It is about the transference of money, sadly, the money is not going to the poor, but only serving to make the poor poorer. that's an undeniable 100% fact. And climate science is creating tens of thousands middle level jobs and making some, very, very rich or richer.

As far as climate models go. At the very least, they are overestimating the effects of CO2, at worst they are dead wrong.
Read the latest IPCC report, page 29 in my browser.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images ... _FINAL.pdf
"However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations reveals that 111 out of
114 realizations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble".
So 98% of the scientists guessed too high, but yet somehow keep hearing that 97% of them are absolutely sure of what they are doing.

In that IPCC report reviewing their models, they write that the average of the models for expected warming the past 14 years was .21C, yet reality was warming of .05C. So they only overestimated the warming by a factor of 4, in reality .05C isn't even warming, the instrument error is greater than that.

It is unbelievable how so many otherwise seemingly smart people are scammed by this biggest scam of all time.
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Sun Sep 28, 2014 3:42 pm

rfarren wrote:For all you conspiracy fans out there:
http://gawker.com/roughly-02-percent-of-published-researchers-reject-glo-1552277388

Mind you these are peer reviewed papers.


I actually have my own brain. Climate science is about stealing your brain. I am a human being, I am not a parrot. I can think for myself. Sadly, the world is full of deception and thievery coming at us from so-called reputable sources. Who do you think the peers are in "peer review". Obama said, "there better not be any climate deniers in my administration (or was it in my EPA)". That settles that. All you have to do is look at the scientists and even weathermen who got fired for daring to buck the consensus.

It's not a conspiracy, (but it is). It's just the evil of human beings and the evil of life. People want money, just about everyone does (some are mixed up in how to get it). Climate science has been a terrific way to suck billions and billions of dollars out of our society. For some it has been very profitable. It's hard to make an honest living in this world and "climate" is one way around that little problem.
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby Marc_C » Sat Oct 18, 2014 1:03 pm

Posted in full - original source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-bines/in-defense-of-science_b_5999976.html


Jonathan Bines
Staff writer, Jimmy Kimmel Live
In Defense Of Science
Posted: 10/16/2014 7:20 pm EDT Updated: 10/16/2014 7:59 pm EDT
SCIENCE TEXTBOOK

In human history, no practice has more profoundly advanced human understanding of the natural world than that of science. So it seems tragic, in the year 2014, that science should require a defense (by a comedy writer, no less). And yet, in both the national dialogue on issues such as climate change, evolution, and vaccines, and in recent conversations I have had with people I consider reasonable and well-educated, I have discovered a shocking anti-science narrative emerging; a fundamental ignorance of or distrust of science that expresses itself in opinions such as:

*Scientists have been wrong in the past and thus should not be trusted now
*Scientists are biased by personal prejudices, financial incentives, and the desire for personal or professional success, and therefore their conclusions are suspect
*Scientific results are not certain, and therefore they can be discounted
*Science is just another way of knowing that should not be given primacy over other ways, such as intuitive knowledge or personal experience.
*Some scientists disagree with the consensus view so there is no way to assess who is right.
*Science is the cause of the problems resulting from technology and therefore suspect.
*Policymakers may ignore science on the grounds that they, themselves, are not scientists.

While some of these opinions are simply misguided, others, at some level, could offer potentially useful critiques of the actual practice of science. However, none of them represent any kind of a rebuttal to the basic, essential fact that, for all its imperfection, hubris, sloppiness, or uncertainty, science works. Like a flashlight shined into dark spaces, science shines the light of its analytical method into the opaque mysteries of the natural world and makes them comprehensible. And it does this over and over again, in field after field of scientific inquiry.

Science is able to achieve its results by following a rigorous method of investigation involving the creation and testing of hypotheses against observational evidence. At every stage, these hypotheses are subjected to intense challenge. First, they are tested through the process of scientific research. Then through the process of publication and peer review they are subjected to challenge by the larger scientific community. After publication, they continue to be challenged, corroborated, modified, or refined by new research and new hypotheses. Science that has withstood this onslaught of skepticism is seen to be accurate and trustworthy, and consequently it earns the backing of a consensus of practicing scientists.

Because science is based on such a strong foundation of evidence and analytical rigor, anyone who would challenge science, particularly well-established science such as that on evolution, climate, or vaccines (or, for that matter, gravitation and quantum mechanics), rightly faces a very high burden of proof, a burden which most science skeptics fail even to acknowledge, much less satisfy. Science cannot be refuted by appeals to intuition or personal experience, attacks on the character or motivations of scientists, accusations of institutional bias, or by "cherry-picking" a particular authority figure, alternative theory, or research study. It cannot be denied because it is inconvenient, or because one dislikes the policy implications. It cannot be dismissed on supernatural grounds or through suggestions of conspiracy. It cannot be undermined by dreaming up alternative hypotheses (unsupported by strong evidence), or by pointing to remaining uncertainties in the established theory. All these are utterly inconsequential as refutations -- not because scientists "know better" than the rest of us -- but simply because they fail to convincingly meet the burden of proof.

Science works, and so we accept its findings -- not because we have "faith" in them or because they are perfect -- but because in an uncertain world, we wish to use the best available information to solve our problems, improve our condition, and understand our situation. This means, in the year 2014, accepting the current scientific consensus that vaccines are well-understood, safe, and effective. It means accepting the current scientific consensus that humans are causing the climate to change through the emission of atmospheric carbon and other greenhouse gasses with results that will almost certainly range from bad to catastrophic. It means accepting the current scientific consensus that evolution through natural selection is the theory most likely to describe observed biological diversity at all levels from DNA to species, including human beings. Certainly, we should maintain a "healthy skepticism," but we should focus that skepticism, not on the science, but rather on the claims of those who profess to be in possession of some special knowledge or authority outside of the formal scientific process. To do otherwise would be to deprive ourselves of the greatest tool for human advancement mankind has ever known, at exactly the time when such a tool is needed most.
-marc
User avatar
Marc_C
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:32 am
Location: A Sandy place south of a Great Lake

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby flyover » Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:55 pm

Ah, but the problem, of course, is that "it is a well-known fact that reality has a liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert

See 1:58 - 2:12 of this: http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/4 ... yson-pt--2, for Neil deGrasse Tyson's thoughts on science vs. belief.
flyover
 
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:17 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby rfarren » Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:22 am

SnowbirdDevotee wrote:

It's not a conspiracy, (but it is). It's just the evil of human beings and the evil of life. People want money, just about everyone does (some are mixed up in how to get it). Climate science has been a terrific way to suck billions and billions of dollars out of our society. For some it has been very profitable. It's hard to make an honest living in this world and "climate" is one way around that little problem.


I think the weight of that argument is based on the fact that scientist are fudging data and results for pay checks. I think it's a lot simpler than that. They are writing the results of their research, regardless of monetary compensation. They are paid whether or not their results verify or disprove their hypothesis.

The political end game of climate research is seen as harmful to large energy corporations, who in turn spend vast sums, far exceeding the amount spent on actual research, to refute the results of what they see as harmful to future profits. If there is any veracity to argument that " People want money" colors scientific data, I think the burden of that lies with the the "naysayers" more so.

All science requires funding, not just climate science, and the billions spent on climate science are far less than trillions which the large energy companies have at stake. The argument that funding is coloring the results of climate science is specious at best, dangerous at worst, and furthermore impossible to prove.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby Marc_C » Sun Nov 02, 2014 10:53 am

its_a_conspiracy.jpg
its_a_conspiracy.jpg (70.89 KiB) Viewed 12673 times
-marc
User avatar
Marc_C
 
Posts: 3173
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:32 am
Location: A Sandy place south of a Great Lake

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby Tony Crocker » Sun Nov 02, 2014 3:33 pm

rfarren wrote:large energy corporations, who in turn spend vast sums, far exceeding the amount spent on actual research, to refute the results of what they see as harmful to future profits.

The energy companies spend their money directly, lobbying Congress and regulators.

rfarren wrote:All science requires funding, not just climate science, ........ The argument that funding is coloring the results of climate science is specious at best, dangerous at worst, and furthermore impossible to prove.

Richard Lindzen, the original subject of this thread, addressed this issue:
http://news360.com/article/217983805# wrote:If Lindzen is right about this and global warming is nothing to worry about, why do so many climate scientists, many with résumés just as impressive as his, preach imminent doom? He says it mostly comes down to the money—to the incentive structure of academic research funded by government grants. Almost all funding for climate research comes from the government, which, he says, makes scientists essentially vassals of the state. And generating fear, Lindzen contends, is now the best way to ensure that policymakers keep the spigot open.

Lindzen contrasts this with the immediate aftermath of World War II, when American science was at something of a peak. “Science had established its relevance with the A-bomb, with radar, for that matter the proximity fuse,” he notes. Americans and their political leadership were profoundly grateful to the science community; scientists, unlike today, didn’t have to abase themselves by approaching the government hat in hand. Science funding was all but assured.

But with the cuts to basic science funding that occurred around the time of the Vietnam war, taxpayer support for research was no longer a political no-brainer. “It was recognized that gratitude only went so far,” Lindzen says, “and fear was going to be a much greater motivator. And so that’s when people began thinking about .  .  . how to perpetuate fear that would motivate the support of science.”

If you want to research, say, solar influence on climate, maybe it's a bit more difficult to get funding.

MarcC wrote:Science works, and so we accept its findings -- not because we have "faith" in them or because they are perfect -- but because in an uncertain world, we wish to use the best available information to solve our problems, improve our condition, and understand our situation. This means, in the year 2014, accepting the current scientific consensus that vaccines are well-understood, safe, and effective. It means accepting the current scientific consensus that humans are causing the climate to change through the emission of atmospheric carbon and other greenhouse gasses with results that will almost certainly range from bad to catastrophic. It means accepting the current scientific consensus that evolution through natural selection is the theory most likely to describe observed biological diversity at all levels from DNA to species, including human beings. Certainly, we should maintain a "healthy skepticism," but we should focus that skepticism, not on the science, but rather on the claims of those who profess to be in possession of some special knowledge or authority outside of the formal scientific process. To do otherwise would be to deprive ourselves of the greatest tool for human advancement mankind has ever known, at exactly the time when such a tool is needed most.

Scientific advancement almost by definition involves hypothesizing, testing and proving that which was previously unknown. This can be a long and tedious process during which most, some or maybe only a few of the original questions get answered. Vaccines have a long enough history and a huge amount of data with which to measure the risks and benefits. Evolution may have a few minor loose ends but enough research has been done there to satisfy a very high percentage of researchers. Climate science by comparison is in its infancy. You start asking specific questions and the only strong consensus you get is that greenhouse gases are the major cause of a 1 degree warming since 1950. The confidence in future projections is not so strong, not surprising since current temperatures lie below the range of something like 98% of the projections made at the turn of the century. Few scientists think the computer models are credible on a regional basis or for precipitation.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9803
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Interesting piece on Lintzen/climate change

Postby rfarren » Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:37 pm

Tony Crocker wrote: Richard Lindzen, the original subject of this thread, addressed this issue:
http://news360.com/article/217983805# wrote:If Lindzen is right about this and global warming is nothing to worry about, why do so many climate scientists, many with résumés just as impressive as his, preach imminent doom? He says it mostly comes down to the money—to the incentive structure of academic research funded by government grants. Almost all funding for climate research comes from the government, which, he says, makes scientists essentially vassals of the state. And generating fear, Lindzen contends, is now the best way to ensure that policymakers keep the spigot open.


This argument is: they have different results, therefore they must be unethical, because I can't be wrong... That isn't science.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


All content herein copyright © 1999-2017 First Tracks!! Online Media

Forums Terms & Conditions of Use