@BrianK
Oh and about Co2 and plant growth.. I thought that was common knowledge??
Here is a graph that shows how co2 levels affect plant growth: http://www.hydrofarm.com/articles/co2.jpg
Though i disagree with other end of scale though..

Last edited by Tomas on 24-Nov-2010 at 05:09 PM.

@Tomas

Quote:

Oh and about Co2 and plant growth.. I thought that was common knowledge??

Your claim that 'if levels dropped a bit more' means plants would more or less stop growing isn't common knowledge. You included a graph
Quote:

http://www.hydrofarm.com/articles/co2.jpg

even showing that your claim of a 'simple fact' isn't true. Today we're bout 385ppm. Pre-industrial times was around 300ppm. It'd have to drop by more than a third of that, according to your graph, to have no growth. Or by more than 1/2 of the present value. Perhaps the problem with your statment is 'a bit' is not a clear number? Personally I don't consider a 1/3, and certainly not a 1/2, to be 'a bit'.

Also, I'd have to say your graph is mostly isolted to CO2 and nothing else that may be happening at the same time. This appears to me to be an assumption of 'perfect' conditions. Certainly plants do grow with more CO2. However, plants need more than CO2 to grow. They need water and nutrients from the soil. A larger plant needs more nutrients. If the soil nutrition is inadquate adding more CO2 may have the impact of sapping nutritents quicker, the plant grows bigger, but has a shorter life. The worse soil now is even less productive for future offspring. Of course water is needed too. If the local climate conditions change and the environemnt too wet the plant may drown, too dry and the plant dies too. And lastly this graph doesn't consider natural pest factors. Alaska is a good example. It's about 4F warmer there than it was 25 years ago. Even if plants are growing larger due to the CO2 and warmth the impact is even more positive for those bugs which eat plants. The net result of more bugs and a longer plant eating season, due to warmth, is shrinking the forest.

CO2 is positive in general. Though CO2 is not the sole factor determining life of a plant within environment.


EDIT: Here's one study for you to review. CO2 effects on Stomata Turned out that doubling CO2 reduces the stomata of a plant. This in turn reduces the mositure intake of the plant and results in as high as a 35% reduction in food production. Again this illustrates that your thought that CO2 is always good is not reality for every plant in the environment.

Last edited by BrianK on 24-Nov-2010 at 09:49 PM.

WMO claims 2010 to be 3rd hottest year on record Though end of Jan timeframe they'll have the data in from the stations for Dec and will finalize the measurements.

@BrianK
I didnt state any numbers did i? Already at pre industrial level you will notice quite a bit of slow down in growth.

Btw.. enjoy your future food/electricity/gas/product rations: cancun-cop16-calls-for-a-return-to-wwii-style-rationing
and:
why_you_may_soon_need_a_warmists_permission_to_eat

Meanwhile the winter i and other skeptics predicted seems to be here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/03/norways-coldest-november-in-living-memory/
And where i sadly happen to live: http://iceagenow.com/Coldest_in_Norway_in_222_years.htm

Now we have had one year straight with very unusual and colder than normal temps with exception of a couple of months that were "normal".
Some island town at the coast has already run out of water and the little remaining has freezen over solid... Water dams are also running short due to lack of rain and extreme cold. If this winter ends up like last winter we will run out and have no infrastructure capable of importing enough electricity.
We are also having constant power outages in random parts of city due to overloaded transformers.

But i guess this is just weather eh??
Jet streams are now in southern parts of spain which makes this year the fourth year in row with jet streams moving more and more south just like we skeptics predicted.

People are freezing to death all across of europe right now and yet you people claim that colder is good??
You really should come here on a vacation, so you can experience some real cold on your own body.

It is not just local cooling over EU either as even australia and southern america experience cold weather compared to how it should be at this time of year.

But i guess the next giss map will show red areas again since you believers love to cherry pick both stations and so called "normal" period.

Edit: And it is not just temperatures that has been weird over the last year here in Norway. The weather has been completely out of season as well and we actually got finished with fall storms that usually starts in october already in summer. In june we did not have any real summer days at all and temperatures were more similar to april/may. We did not get our first summer days before july, and even then it kept shifting between cold out of season weather and temps of up to 25c, while 28-30c would be normal highs during the hottest days of summer.
We should now have wind and a mixture of mild weather with rain, sleet, fall storms with heavy wind and a few clear nights with slightly below freezing temps.
Now we are having clear weather nearly every day, windstill or eastern winds for nearly a month straight.

This is NOT normal.

Last edited by Tomas on 04-Dec-2010 at 01:01 AM.
Last edited by Tomas on 04-Dec-2010 at 12:52 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: WMO claims 2010 to be 3rd hottest year on record Though end of Jan timeframe they'll have the data in from the stations for Dec and will finalize the measurements.

So much for warmest year ever that you guys predicted eh?
Amazing that will all these temperature data "corrections" and cherry picking you still did not manage to make it hotter than the super el nino year of 98.

@Tomas

Quote:

This is NOT normal.

I think you will find Climatologists who agree with you there. And of course the reason 'Global Warming' is being dropped is exactly the reason displayed here. It was an incorrect name to reflect the Global Climate Change that is happening at present. It will result in events that are 'NOT normal'. Some areas will be hotter and some cooler.

Quote:

People are freezing to death all across of europe right now and yet you people claim that colder is good?? You really should come here on a vacation, so you can experience some real cold on your own body.

People dying due to too cold doesn't prove people don't die when it's too hot. And yes I've experienced cold. Living in Minnesota I was outside on a day that hit -35F (-37C) for a low and -18F (-27C) for a high. Thanks for the offer and I've been there. The next day we had to start a charcol fire, in the house because the lighter fluid wouldn't ignite outside, let the coals burn down and then place the hot coals under the engine to get things warmed up enough to start.

Quote:

But i guess the next giss map will show red areas again since you believers love to cherry pick both stations and so called "normal" period.

Really what riled your anger so much to be so accusatory? GISS Map of 2010 clearly shows the blue areas above Europe and Norway. Appears to me that wasn't red area cherry picked.

Quote:

So much for warmest year ever that you guys predicted eh?

Did you read the articles? 2010 is actually hotter than either the 1998 or 2005 peaks going into Dec. making it one of the 3 top years.

@Tomas

Quote:

Meanwhile the winter i and other skeptics predicted seems to be here

LINK Here's a link to a brief analysis of the Global Cooling prediction. About 3 years ago a paper was published in Nature predicting a .06 cooling for the 2000-2010 period. Turns out the period was .07-.11 warming, depending on if you want GISS or HadCRUT. Interesting from the standpoint it wasn't a 'guess' such as your prediction but one supposedly built with the factors of why Global Cooling would occur. They were wrong. There's another prediction for 2005-2015 which we're 1/2 way through and they are....wrong so far.

IMO this is good and what I want to see. The small 1-5% of Climatologists that conceive man isn't having an impact on Global Climate need to bring forward what their factors are and build a better predictive model. In this case it appears something somewhere in their understanding is flawed. Next step they need to go back and figure out where they screwed up. Though I doubt that will happen. At the end of the article you'll see a link to the quotes displayed from the paper's author. They claim a decade is too short of a period for prediction. It looks like that is their only lesson they're taking away from their paper. As they were the ones with the decade predictions.

@BrianK

Quote:

I think you will find Climatologists who agree with you there. And of course the reason 'Global Warming' is being dropped is exactly the reason displayed here. It was an incorrect name to reflect the Global Climate Change that is happening at present. It will result in events that are 'NOT normal'. Some areas will be hotter and some cooler.

Man you are such a sheep... How come they suddenly changed mind after last winter you think?? After claiming snow and cold would be pretty much a thing of the past in even northern europe and UK? I said this last year that they are changing it from global warming so they can cover all CHANGES. Do you seriously believe that climate is static?? Btw.. During the lull of end of 1800s-beginning of 1900s we had similar heatwave in northern europe as this year and at the same time cold winters as well.. Some of the hottest temperatures in summer even occured during early part of dalton. The reason is the CHANGE in jet streams driven by natural factors like our sun.
We skeptics SAID THIS WOULD HAPPEN while you true believers denied it saying even that it was near impossible to get a repeat of the winter last year and that it was just a weather fluke. Then soon after you even dared to blame that on global warming, even though we warned that such winters would occur in near future and become increasingly worse over the next decades.

You are just a blind believer who believes the spin you are fed by mass media. Just because some scientist now tweaked the models AFTER last winter occured dosent mean it was caused by global warming. What btw caused the LIA and the heatwaves in end of 1800s to beginning of 1900s?? Sure could not have been co2 and one of the reasons dalton, maunder got cold is believed to be at least partly due to southerly moving jet streams as well.
The global warming theory predictd that the OPPOSITE would happen, but i guess you have already forgot that eh?



Quote:

People dying due to too cold doesn't prove people don't die when it's too hot. And yes I've experienced cold. Living in Minnesota I was outside on a day that hit -35F (-37C) for a low and -18F (-27C) for a high. Thanks for the offer and I've been there. The next day we had to start a charcol fire, in the house because the lighter fluid wouldn't ignite outside, let the coals burn down and then place the hot coals under the engine to get things warmed up enough to start.

But if you look at the stats you would discover that more people die from cold than from heatwaves. Thanks to global warming hysteria many countries dont even have the infrastructure to deal with the problems since they expected such harsh winters to be a thing of the past.
Here even water pipes froze solid last winter and town officials even openly admitted that they had not built it for such cold weather since they had believed IPCC and their supporters about global warming. They even said they felt lied to... ;(
Not even UK can handle a bit of snow anymore even though that used to be a pretty normal occurance in the past, but now airports get closed due to even tiny amounts of snow since they got no equipment anymore to deal with it.

The first sign of global cooling due to low solar activity is always in northern europe/scandinavia since we are so heavily dependent on jet stream for the mild western winds.
It will take years before the rest of the world will follow and we probably dont drop below normal globally before in a decade or so, but this is definitely the start of the global cooling.
Quote:

People dying due to too cold doesn't prove people don't die when it's too hot. And yes I've experienced cold. Living in Minnesota I was outside on a day that hit -35F (-37C) for a low and -18F (-27C) for a high. Thanks for the offer and I've been there. The next day we had to start a charcol fire, in the house because the lighter fluid wouldn't ignite outside, let the coals burn down and then place the hot coals under the engine to get things warmed up enough to start.

If they used the official standard instead of changing the normal period around it would look more blue and less red. That it looks blue suggest that it is extremely cold even compared to the biased normal period they use.

I honestly dont see why i am discussing this as there is obviously no hope for you. You will continue to beleive the lies/spin even when global temperatures start dropping like a rock.

I am not even going to bother replying to most of your cherry picking in other post but will respond to this:
Quote:

The small 1-5% of Climatologists that conceive man isn't having an impact on Global Climate need to bring forward what their factors are and build a better predictive model.

Actually nearly EVERYONE believes co2 and man got some impact on global temperatures. But there are way more then 1-5% that beleive that IPCC claims including even best case scenarios is highly exaggerated. Even those put on the so called IPCC support list often believes it is highly exaggerated. Alot of scientists are actually in fact luke warmers and believe that real warming will be no more than MAX 1c from a doubling of co2 and many believe the most likely scenario is even less. The natural cycles will dwarf the tiny effect from co2.

Btw.. I also happen to know a scientists that are pro AGW and discuss such topics often with him and he is actually much more open minded than you are and actually admits that he dosent know how much we will warm and also have a open mind about the possbility that we skeptics could be right.

Most climate scientists arent even educated in things like long term natural variations in climate, milankovich cycles and so on. They base their science on previous AGW studies that could very well be flawed"i know that is most likely a fact that they are highly flawed". If you base your studies on previous junk science the results will of course be flawed as well.

What we need is scientists of all kinds working together, including geologist who are capable of looking past the last 30 years-century.
But this wont happen as the whole science is driven by politics these days. People within IPCC even admitted that cancun meeting was about redistribution of wealth....

Edit: This article from norwegian metrologic site shows that they have absolutely no clue: http://www.yr.no/nyheter/1.7410009
Translated version: Quote:

The phenomenon that gave the cold winter last year is still here The "North Atlantic oscillation" has been negative unusually long. he problem is that no one understands why it is so. As usual mild winter weather returns, there is no one knows. - A great mystery, experts say. ALSO READ: How was the winter weather 2009/10 Longest period of 40 years The phenomenon struck in December 2009 and have been here ever since. Out of the last forty years we have had an equally long continuous period with a negative North Atlantic Oscillation, abbreviated a "negative NAO." In short, this is what it's about : A positive NAO provides vestavær: Occurs when there is a strong low pressure over Iceland and high pressure over the Azores in the Atlantic. When controlled hot and humid winds from the west across northern Europe. A negative NAO allows østavær: Occurs when the pressure difference between Iceland and the Azores are smaller. When controlled the warm and wet weather down South Europe, while northern Europe is cold and dry weather. In other words: Is NAO'en breeds negative air from polar regions down upon us. The winter is dry and cold. "Seems" is only in winter Last summer pumped westerly weather and low pressures over Norway, although NAO'en was negative. It is entirely consistent with a negative NAO. For it is only in the winter, this is indicated. - In summer, there are other weather patterns dominate. If it gets colder than normal, there are other things than NAO'en that can explain it, "explains Professor Nils Gunnar Kvamstø. He is one of the foremost experts on just NAO'en. - In winter, however, there is NAO'en dominate. The weather is colder than normal, you will not see that other flow patterns can explain it. Can be cold until Christmas That the negative NAO'en at work this winter also, there is little doubt. November 2010 was the coldest in living memory, with cold records galore. And even if the icy coldness slackens on the roof in parts of the country this weekend, there is little evidence to suggest that there is something really mild weather and time again: According to the meteorologist's three-week notice, Norway can in fact experience a cold weather type right up to Christmas. No idea why it comes NAO'en remains a mystery to those who study the weather. - It is fascinating that one has known of this phenomenon is very long, but have no idea why it occurs, "said the Swedish meteorologist and researcher Per Kållberg at the Swedish Meteorological Institute (SMHI) to Sydsvenskan.se. In recent years, the world's scientists put heads together to understand why NAO'en behaves as it does. Carrot is a better long-term alerts, which both common man and meteorologists had embraced heartily. Preliminary findings show that NAO'encan be affected by ocean temperatures in the Arctic and the snow cover in Siberia and the currents high in the atmosphere. But there is only weak relationships that are found, according Kvamstø. Read more about these theories on the Bjerknes Centre's website Waiting anxiously for winter It is apparently chance that determines when NAO'en becomes negative and not. But chaos is not complete: - It's not as random as rolling a dice. When NAO'en have first come into a positive or negative phase, it seems to last longer than a random process would, "said Kvamstø. - Starter winter with a negative NAO, it can hang in a good while. It will be exciting to watch, "says Per Kållberg. All the media attention surrounding the cold does not make the pressure on scientists unless those days. And for some they may fail to reveal NAO'ens secret? - This is a very topical riddle. I do not see that we are close to a breakthrough, but there could be surprises, "says Kvamstø. Read more about NAO'en in Meteorology Encyclopedia.

And who predicted these changes years ago when there was signs of grand solar minimum coming?

Last edited by Tomas on 04-Dec-2010 at 06:28 PM.
Last edited by Tomas on 04-Dec-2010 at 04:44 PM.
Last edited by Tomas on 04-Dec-2010 at 04:36 PM.

@Tomas

Quote:

Man you are such a sheep...

No need for insults discuss the science.

Quote:

How come they suddenly changed mind after last winter you think??

Sounds to me like you want to deny the scientific process's ability to progress. Science makes predictions and when wrong analyzes why they are wrong and makes changes until it gets it right. It's a self correcting skeptical system.

Quote:

Do you seriously believe that climate is static??

Of course not. Though not being static one can then determine what inputs have greater and lessor influence for the system to change.

Quote:

The reason is the CHANGE in jet streams driven by natural factors like our sun.

Just because X happened in the past doesn't mean that same X is at work again. There's a variety of factors that influence climate. For example CO2 was a driving force 40 million years ago Good to know. We have to determine how much CO2 is at influence today and where that CO2 is coming from. The later is fairly easy as we can calculate CO2 released by man and verify by measuring the different Carbon isotopes in the atmoshere to determine if they are more natural or more man made causes.

Quote:

You will continue to beleive the lies/spin even when global temperatures start dropping like a rock.

An unsupportable accusation. But, when global temperatures do that check back in. The 2000-2010 was the warmest decade on record, which was predicted in the 90s. 2010-2020 is supposed to be hotter. See ya in a decade!

Quote:

Btw.. I also happen to know a scientists that are pro AGW and discuss such topics often with him and he is actually much more open minded than you are and actually admits that he dosent know how much we will warm and also have a open mind about the possbility that we skeptics could be right.

Come on again another bogus charge / thinly veiled attempt an insult. If you really want to win people over to your side accusing them falsely is not the way to do it.

Now to my evidence that you are misguided in your belief that I'm not open. I posed the link to science that stated the warming wouldn't happen. I was open to seeing the results of their predictions. As I've said bring me the climate science and I'll watch it. I'm interested in seeing the 'skeptics' prove their ideas.

Quote:

including geologist who are capable of looking past the last 30 years-century.

Good demand and you'd like to know that's happening. Look previously in this thread on how they worked on CO2 and it's influence from millions of years ago.

@BrianK
But you can insult us by calling us deniers and comparing is to holocaust deniers?
We are attacked from all sides and some of you believers even think we should be jailed or even executed since we are a "threat" to your survival and planet according to your blind beliefs.

By the way read the edit i just added to my last comment, which shows that scientists and so called experts have no idea. I admit we dont know all about climate, but there is at least strong support from observations even though we dont know yet how sun drives these changes.

You on the other hand have only temperatures and ice decline as proof which also happened to coincidence with the strongest solar cycles in 8000+ years.

@Thomas

Quote:

But this wont happen as the whole science is driven by politics these days

Sir please read up on the history of science. It's an endeavor by man and as such has always been driven by politics. The church/government cramped down on science they didn't like. Read up on the treatment of Galileo. Check out the treatment of Semmelweiss by Doctors because he thought washing hands would produce less infections.

Certainly the Bush Era resulted in scientists complaining about political appointees changing and or refusing publican of their work. This includes Global Climate research. Definitely indicative of your thought of politcally driven science. In the US it appears to have opened up to allow more freedom of scientists since Obama took office.

@BrianK
It is the other way. The real "deniers" are your side who cant keep a slight open mind that maybe skeptic scientists are on to something and there might be a possibility that you have it wrong.
Instead you shout science is settled!! And even contact media if they dare to publish some article about a skeptic study while at the same time doing your best to stop them from having their studies peer reviewed.
You also keep throwing names around at any scientists who admits they are either lukewarmers or skeptics even though they were very well respected while they were "on your side".

Skeptic scientists wants open discussions and even wants to work together with your guys to find out the real truth. Your side even shuts our side out of climate meetings and discussions. It is you who are the hypocrites in this case.

If you would respect us, i would respect you and your beliefs as well.

@Tomas

Quote:

But you can insult us by calling us deniers and comparing is to holocaust deniers?

I have never once used any comparison of the holocaust deniers to climate deniers. If you can find a post # please refer me I'd be glad to review.

Though I do contend 'skeptic' as used by anti-global warmers is a misnomer. The foundation for this word is the greek skeptikoi. It means seeker or inquirer. A true skeptic analyses all evidence presented to her and selects the course with the proponderance of evidence. Today that evidence resets that we humans are influencing the climate. You have been posting the minority points, often from non-scientific backgrounds aka Watts, to deny the majority of current scientific research about the climate. This isn't a skeptical inquiry (aka Skeptic) this is a denialist action as you have choosen your side and are cherry picking only those articles which support your point of view.

Quote:

We are attacked from all sides and some of you believers even think we should be jailed or even executed

I can't speak for a group I'm a part of by thought but no other physical assocation. I don't know these people of which you speak. However, if your demand is a side that isn't violent in some way you can't pick either side. Denialists have placed death threats against climatologists. So it's not as if either side doesn't have some bad behavior.

@Tomas

Quote:

The real "deniers" are your side who cant keep a slight open mind that maybe skeptic scientists are on to something and there might be a possibility that you have it wrong

And my posting of science that had an global cooling result with it's comparison to what really happened isn't looking at the other side to see what's resulting?

The rest you post is just bullocks for me personally. I've never asked any paper to not publish anything. You are stereotyping the actions of a few and applying them to the many personally. That's wrong. And I've welcomed you here. Though I've asked you stick to posting science instead of building stereotypes and pushing forward insults.

@BrianK
Quote:

I have never once used any comparison of the holocaust deniers to climate deniers. If you can find a post # please refer me I'd be glad to review.

But that is how the word is used these days. If you use it i will of course think you are using it in the same way as well.
Quote:

Though I do contend 'skeptic' as used by anti-global warmers is a misnomer. The foundation for this word is the greek skeptikoi. It means seeker or inquirer. A true skeptic analyses all evidence presented to her and selects the course with the proponderance of evidence. Today that evidence resets that we humans are influencing the climate. You have been posting the minority points, often from non-scientific backgrounds aka Watts, to deny the majority of current scientific research about the climate. This isn't a skeptical inquiry (aka Skeptic) this is a denialist action as you have choosen your side and are cherry picking only those articles which support your point of view.

I actually used to be a believer like you until i actually started researching both sides.
As a result of this i am now biased towards the side that most of the warming was caused by natural changes while only a small part is due to co2.
Watts is indeed a biased site, but it does link to actual scientific studies including peer reviews ones. Even if it is biased it is less biased than lets say realclimate as it at least offers input from pro AGW scientists as well. There are even guest posts there by pro AGW people that even earned the respect from skeptic community thanks to them being open minded enough to listen as well as explain their own views.
Realclimate on the other hand does not even allow comments that are skeptical and never publishes anything on skeptical studies unless they found flaws that they can make fun of.

Quote:

I can't speak for a group I'm a part of by thought but no other physical assocation. I don't know these people of which you speak. However, if your demand is a side that isn't violent in some way you can't pick either side. Denialists have placed death threats against climatologists. So it's not as if either side doesn't have some bad behavior.

Yes, both sides do of course have extremists. You dont however see such lunatics threats come mainstream news, politicians and even scientists like what happens in the AGW world.
If it wasnt for blogs like watts we would not be heard at all as even peer reviewed studies dont get much coverage in mainstream news these days.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Quote: The real "deniers" are your side who cant keep a slight open mind that maybe skeptic scientists are on to something and there might be a possibility that you have it wrong And my posting of science that had an global cooling result with it's comparison to what really happened isn't looking at the other side to see what's resulting? The rest you post is just bullocks for me personally. I've never asked any paper to not publish anything. You are stereotyping the actions of a few and applying them to the many personally. That's wrong. And I've welcomed you here. Though I've asked you stick to posting science instead of building stereotypes and pushing forward insults.

A few stereotypes?? We are ignored by 90% of media and instead served propaganda and scare stories about world ending if we dont act now. Politicians wont even discuss it as it is all settled even though there are new studies that show that science isnt settled.
And again you talk about insults when you in last post used the word denialist...

Quote:

And again you talk about insults when you in last post used the word denialist...

This is where I've always considered there to be an imbalance in many a discussion. In much I've read, Scientist are those who agree with current GW theories. Those who don't completely agree are denialist, political hacks, and mouth breathers. Many of the same people making these unfair analogies are the same ones constantly echoing " scientific method"

If scientific method were a legal entity, it would haul many using it's name into court for slander and misrepresentation. IMHO "scientic method" is being tarnished globally by the way it's been used in this GW topic.

Plaz

@Tomas
Quote:

But that is how the word is used these days. If you use it i will of course think you are using it in the same way as well.

AFAIK no one at AmigaWorld posted an association between climate denialists and holocast denialism. I think you are clear here that you're reading a stereotype and applying it carte blanche without taking time to understand how or why someone is using the words they select.

Quote:

Realclimate on the other hand does not even allow comments that are skeptical

This is clearly false. Read the comments on any thread and you will find many many anti-global warming comments.

Quote:

and never publishes anything on skeptical studies unless they found flaws that they can make fun of.

Take the recent post I did here from Real. It was a global cooling study. If you read it there is no making fun. They were straight forward with looking at the evidence. They even asked for the authors to make comments on their sight. Unfortunately, the global cooling authors choose to not make any comments about their work.

Quote:

If it wasnt for blogs like watts we would not be heard at all as even peer reviewed studies dont get much coverage in mainstream news these days.

Scientific peer reviewed studies don't get much coverage. Why? It's boring. The news is there to sell their product. The new's motto is 'if it bleeds it leads'. As for Watts being the only answer that's a joke. Rupert Murdoch owned media outlets have your back, unapologetically, for one large sample.

Quote:

there are new studies that show that science isnt settled. And again you talk about insults when you in last post used the word denialist...

Is science ever settled? Newtonian gravity was thought to be correct. Then it was discovered that Planet Vulcan, which would under Newton, keep Mecury from crashing into the sun didn't exist. Newton's ideas worked but that's a planet sized hole (sic) in the theory. Einstein came along and purposed a better model. One that accounted for everything Newton did and more (it kept Mecury in orbit without the need of a planet that didn't exist.) Now Einstein's theory works pretty well but even that is imperfect. On the quantum level there are unresolved issues. So clearly Gravity isn't 'setttled'. Though we do continue to operate in the world where the major accepted consensus view of Physicts being use Einstein's theory is in play because it's the best working theory at present.

As for Denialist. I've clearly explained that a skeptic is one who is weighing both sides of the evidence. If one is posting only anti-gw articles it's clear they're not being skeptical. They've made up their mind that, that is their agenda. As you called me a sheep for Global Warming it's just as correct to label these people a sheet for anti-global warming. Most often their job is to claim the climatologists wrong and demand that the only option is one must switch to their view. It appears they don't understand science demands proof. Saying one side is wrong doesn't automatically mean your side is right. You still have to prove it. These people are clearly NOT making skeptical inquiries they're acting poltically to deny the current understanding of science. Calling them skeptics is a ####ization of the term Skeptic and therefore is unacceptable. Denialism is clearly a more accurate reflection of their actions.

To put it in brief -- as much as you see politically a poor choice to use the term Denialist I see a politically poorer choice to use the term Skeptic.

Last edited by BrianK on 05-Dec-2010 at 04:52 PM.

@Plaz

Quote:

Scientist are those who agree with current GW theories. Those who don't completely agree are denialist, political hacks, and mouth breathers.

A climatologist is one whose building a working understanding of earth's climate. There are certainly fringe scientists that appear out of step with the mainstream. Fringe science is an important area but is more often wrong. Science is built on misunderstanding and building a better understanding, honing in on the truth. It's not always a direct path but it will get there eventually.

That being said there are clearly 'scientists' at the fringe that deny the majority understanding of climate and are seeking their own way. And that's great. However, their work must also live up to the reproduceability and accuracy of the other science. Until their theories are overall more accurate they aren't going to be accepted.

We've seen this over and over again in the history of science. Ideas that more accurately predict the behavior of the world around us win out. Germ Theory, Einsteinian gravity, Plate Tectonics, washing hands to keep clean, and Evolutionary Theory are all ideas which were the minority and eventually advanced to be the major accepted theories due to their ability to better predict the actions of the universe around us then the the theories they upsurped.

As for scientitsts again the current state of climate understanding they are clearly the minority. It appears to me those who are called Denialists are less likely to be scientists and more likely to be the public. Depending on what sources one wants to use the current state of science is anywhere from 85-99% accepted by climatologists (aka scientists in the field of question). What's failing is the public's understanding as only about 1/2 the public (at least in the USA) are willing to side with the 99% of climatologists. This is a political failure not a scientific one.

@threadtitle

Oh yeah I believe in global warming.. haha poppycock.. experiencing the snowiest december since 1981. We was told snowy winters in the UK of old were next to impossible by the GW brigade, but it seems year on year are winters are getting more traditional as the jet stream darts south thanks to solar minima and other contributory factors.

Last edited by djrikki on 05-Dec-2010 at 05:36 PM.

_________________