Global Warming

[stefan]

Well, that's interesting Bill. Neither I nor Singer has ever argued that there is no global warming, just the causes of it.

does it not concern you that he's published almost zero original work in peer reviewed journals in this field of research? doesn't this dramatically lower your preception of his credentials?

one could argue that he's like a mechanic, who's read a number of manuals about some cars, has never REALLY worked on a car but has changed out an alternator once or twice ... and, moreover can dazzle you with stories about how the inner workings of how a car should work.

just curious, but how have you gotten yourself around this?

[Wasatch Rebel]

one could argue that he's like a mechanic, who's read a number of manuals about some cars, has never REALLY worked on a car but has changed out an alternator once or twice ... and, moreover can dazzle you with stories about how the inner workings of how a car should work.

just curious, but how have you gotten yourself around this?

I think it's more like a researcher who never fought or participated in World War II, but has done his homework enough to know that war inside and out through researching others who were there, then writing a book on it. You already said that you haven't bothered to read the book, then are you, like that faux mechanic qualified to comment on it?

[stefan]

one could argue that he's like a mechanic, who's read a number of manuals about some cars, has never REALLY worked on a car but has changed out an alternator once or twice ... and, moreover can dazzle you with stories about how the inner workings of how a car should work.

just curious, but how have you gotten yourself around this?

I think it's more like a researcher who never fought or participated in World War II, but has done his homework enough to know that war inside and out through researching others who were there, then writing a book on it. You already said that you haven't bothered to read the book, then are you, like that faux mechanic qualified to comment on it?

first off you haven't answered my question.

second, comparing history to science?? damn that kind of comment is precisely the kind of scary logic i worry about in this debate. i am sorry but this is NOT how science works. science doesn't get broadcast FIRST to the lay people to decide, it gets judged by the science community. fred singer has hardly allowed for the science community to do this. i know you know this, why on earth would you argue along these lines???


now ... if you view his work as commentary ... fine ... but it needs to be peer reviewed to be given stronger credit. otherwise it's too easy to dupe those of us, the general public, without a detailed understanding of the relevant science.

third, i DIDN'T comment on the book except

(1) to be skeptical of any claims made (nothing wrong there)

(2) from what i have read elsewhere, i criticized that he has completely glossed over the fact that, by a CONSIDERABLE amount, the CO2 level is currently higher now than it has been in at least 400,000 years. i asked you if he mentioned it in his book. i have now read a few science "letters" that he has written, and he makes no mention of it.

i will add ...

also his satellite measurements have been criticized as only sampling a small set of measurements, and no one has claimed that some areas will not see cooling. on the other hand his argument that the "warming" is only seen since measurements are occuring in cities and cities are warming up is WRONG, since we've been measuring many locations far outside of major cities and non-cities are apparently warming up to. so i would question that as well.

(3) I also challenged anyone who says high CO2 is good for everyone, when we have no real live experience of such ... extrapolating from the past geologic history is one thing for general physical conditions, but i would a REAL scientist wouldn't traipse out on a such tenuous thread of knowledge, when discussing how the weather and life will respond to it. everyone knows that warming and increased CO2 helps many plants grow. but this is such a simplified picture of what additional complexities might/likely will arise, that i think it is a blatant disregard of science.

back to your war analogy ...
i can't help but think he sounds like bush entering the iraq war, thinking it's going to be a piece of cake, when all hell breaks loose.

[Wasatch Rebel]

does it not concern you that he's published almost zero original work in peer reviewed journals in this field of research? doesn't this dramatically lower your preception of his credentials?

one could argue that he's like a mechanic, who's read a number of manuals about some cars, has never REALLY worked on a car but has changed out an alternator once or twice ... and, moreover can dazzle you with stories about how the inner workings of how a car should work.

just curious, but how have you gotten yourself around this?

first off you haven't answered my question

Yes I did, you just didn

[Sombeech]

I sure could use some of that Global Warming this morning. It's frickin' cold outside.

[stefan]

[quote=jimflint1]

Yes I did, you just didn

[Wasatch Rebel]

Stefan, you've made some valid points and I've appreciated the opportunity to debate this issue with you. One more thing you should consider--Wikipedia is not considered to be a source without bias and without error, with many of its articles being written by the good Lord knows who.

[stefan]

I've appreciated the opportunity to debate this issue with you.

agreed

One more thing you should consider--Wikipedia is not considered to be a source without bias and without error, with many of its articles being written by the good Lord knows who.

then a point is made about throwing up questionable websites for supporting arguments ... on the other hand, it should be noted that the claim by scientific american (which can be found on their site) should throw some doubt on the validity of the number and specific backgrounds of the signatories, i.e., i wouldn't take it at face value by any means.