I've been away for a while after a disastrous winter, trying to up my ski day count during May, and afterwards, I returned to other issues. So I missed this discussion. In fact, I'm glad I did as I've heard it all before here and elsewhere. This discussion is worthless because it is politically polarized and the arguments are built on “beliefs” and citing the beliefs of “authorities”. I get tired of the way it goes between believers and nonbelievers.
My two cents:
I don't believe in Global Warming; I don't dismiss global warming (lower case lettering is intentional).
I don't believe in Relativity; I don't dismiss relativity.
I don't believe in nuclear fission; and, I don't dismiss nuclear fission (and its associated “relativity science”) as Jewish Science, as was popular to do in Europe (particularly) before WWII. But then, after the Atomic Bomb incinerated around 120,000 people in two days, everyone became a Believer….except for true scientists.
Scientists don’t “believe”, they work with theories, models, and concepts to determine which gives accounting of data and does not spuriously conflict with other theories (aside, most people mistake the term theories, which have a body of compelling evidence, with hypotheses, which do not). I’m entering my 37th year as a practicing scientist and just published my 116th refereed paper. And I have never believed in anything! I look at the measurements, look at the best evaluations of others, work with the present theories of the phenomenon, and judge whether the data and interpretations are sufficient to support the conclusions. As a scientist, I look for any incompleteness or deficiency in prior work. We scientists just love exposing and destroying other scientists’ reputations by showing where they are in error or have missed important issues—usually through incompleteness. Of course, if I go after someone—and I have successfully, I have to convince my referees and journal editors that my interpretation is more consistent—or just AS CONSISTENT—with the data (The introduction of new, discordant data is encouraged.). The process is very democratic (small "d") and is designed to keep everyone intellectually honest. Beliefs are not the basis of an argument. Nature does not care what anyone thinks or believes, it just has its own way. Good scientists will discard any model or theory for one that is more consistent with data. If fact, this happens all the time across biology, chemistry, and physics--and you never hear about it on CNN or FOX.
This irreverence also means that there are no “authorities”. Some scientists have very good reputations because they are often proved right in a limited area, but in the world of refereed journals, they have to work just as hard as anyone to make complete arguments and conclusions. In this world Nobel Prize winners are not authorities that can make pronouncements without data and proofs. After they get their prize, the effort they need to put into their work does not diminish. The other sharks around them will have fun embarrassing them.
In fact, anyone who writes on this board can prepare their particular manuscript negating Global Warming, send it a journal, have it refereed and accepted, and published. No PhD is required. No history of working in Climatology is required. But you’d better discuss the complete body of climate data, show how your particular climate mechanism is consistent with the known data (perhaps through climate simulations that employ the model), and perhaps make predictions of the future climate (easily done after you simulate the past successfully). Your barrier to acceptance by the journal is actually very low because your paper will likely not even need to disprove the other working climate models. It will only need to demonstrate that the current model for climate change is incomplete.
Just presenting a mechanism that reproduces the climate trends and counters the effects of radiative forcing from anthropogenic CO2, CH4, SF6, NOx/NO, and halocarbons will likely win you several prizes. You’ll be on the cover of Time, the Wall Street Journal, etc! You'll collect large consulting fees from whomever profits most by negating global warming theory. And best of all, you’ll join the rubber chicken circuit for years and make lots of cash by giving after dinner speeches! You will have a nice obit (hopefully much later). Of course, you’ll likely want to negate the effects of anthropogenic aerosols in your second paper. Good luck!
Tony Crocker":48prn896 said:
To recap:
My statistician side says anthropogenic global warming is not even close to being proven.
OK, Tony has his graph on sunspots. He can publish it in the refereed scientific literature, where anyone can publish—or cite it if the work was compiled by another—and then go on with the quantitative mechanism presentation. For organizing the paper one can start with pushing over the arguments in
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... myths.html
Actually, this site would only provide practice as it is written for laymen and the arguments and data in the literature are more rigorous. But only one who writes the first manuscript will be allowed to sharpen their presentation during the refereeing cycle.
When you make your living off of beliefs, you will likely be shown a fool. But don’t worry, there are many in denial of any compelling evidence. Most non-Americans believe that the USA never landed men on the Moon. And after centuries some still believe the earth is flat. Let me know how that’s working for you.
Frankly, in the medium run, the data says the Planet is likely toast, assuming you like the way it is now. Most of the people around me are looking forward to tepid winters.
Jeff
