Ok let's have http://www.zianet.com/wblase/endtimes/gwarming.htm [Broken].
From Ivan's citation:
It would seem the good professor is not qualified to speak to these issues as he is neither a climate expert nor a medical doctor.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Okay, that was good!
When first posting the story I almost commented that this person seems a bit extreme, even for my taste, but I knew you all would take care of that for me.
Andre, neither one of those links look very solid to me. Why don't you stick with mainstream resources. In fact, it might help to show the actual link used in the future; just so that it doesn't appear that you are masking your sources.
Take a deep breath ...
And your original link looked very solid? You might think of following your own advice particularly after writing
Look, there is no doubt that were drastic climate shifts to occur it would be catastrophic and dire not only to man but to all living things on the planet. Since the stakes are so high it is absolutely imperative that both (a) the research be done right and (b) the very credibility of science be maintained. One will not accomplish either of these by putting up dire predictions from crackpots and scare mongering with spurious data.
Do yourself and everyone else a favor by discussing the issues with a cool head and, above all, encourage open, healthy and constructive debate and discussion. Afterall, everyone's fate is at stake and it's too important to leave in the hands of the cognoscenti.
I think Reuters is a perfectly good news source. They are at least held accountable for presenting actual people with actual credentials. Most of my links either cite or link to scientific papers or other credible resources. So, with rare exception, my sources are fine.
Look, first of all, Andre has been posting here for a long time. My comments are not intended to apply only to one or two of his posts [edit: or only to him for that matter. Andre became more the focus than was intended]. Frankly, I just don't have the time to spend my life arguing. I am much more interested in helping to pass along the best information available.
These are complex issues - as evidenced by your post about clouds and global warming.
This does not mean that all of climatology is bogus - which is what many seem to argue - rather it shows the complexity of these issues and the difficulting in getting reliable answers. This is all the more reason why I think do-it-yourself climate arguments are completely inappropriate to a credible discussion. Of course, I can hardly object to links and quotes from published information [published in a leading science journal], or recognzied experts in a related field of study. If the experts all finally decide that the current models are all wrong, Great! I would love to drive a gas guzzling pig again; in fact I am still sitting on a Chevy 396 with H2 in mind right now.
btw, I think the solar energy output is the problem. But until I see a continuous stream of articles supporting this position I refuse to argue the point; or believe it. At least I'm consistent.
Actually, I was thinking of the good professor as the source. :-)
Well, just think about how it looks to us newcomers! You need to make the forums inviting to newcomers with the right tone, tact and diplomacy.
That is not the issue. It's whether the data collection, methods, analysis and modelling related to global climate change are true to the scientific method and principles. In that regard they are sorely lacking. I, for one, want it done right since I'm paying for it and my future depends on it. Ultimately and unfortunately, the problem is the politicization science which is, in a word, bad.
I don't know what you mean by "do-it-yourself climate arguments." It appears you mean that questioning the data collection, methods, analysis and modelling related to global climate change is a do-it-yourself argument. If that's true then I would respectfully disagree. Any competent scientist can judge the quality of the science and most climatologists involved in the global warming debate recognize the shortcomings. The body of the original IPCC report, for example, lists many of the caveats, shortcomings, errors and so on and it was reviewed by real world scientists. Unfortunately, the final version was edited very significantly by nonscientists before its final release. It should be no surprise that others find fault with the methodology when those conducting the research and analysis admit the shortcomings themselves.
You should also recognize that global climate change is different from science per se since there is yet no theory of climate change - only speculation based on questionable modelling and data collection and analysis.
The data is coming slowly but steadily!
Okay, I may have over-reacted, but you came in like a charging bull yourself, you know. I see too many personal theories and unsupported statements by influential members, and not enough discussion of the facts, as reported, according to the recognized experts. For me this raises a giant red flag.
Interestingly, I fully intended my first comment (the one about being desperate for funding) to be humorous. Thanks for your comments.
Well we're all waiting for better/appicable data.
Shoot! Why don't we all just become climatologists??
But how solid was that yet another CL: What's the source, what's the evidence
What scientific value is that? You can say anything nowadays and blame it on global warming. So for the balance I choose for links just as radical with about the same propaganda value and without caring about much substantiation. Doesn't actually matter anyway, even if I post solid proof of serious flaws, in the AGW religion, nobody pays any attention whatsoever.
the headline on that article is pretty ridiculous, but then the physical chemist goes on to complain about NOx and ozone, which isn't so ridiculous.
But NOx and ozone are mixing up two issues. But it's not about pollution, which is orders of magnitude less here, than a few decades ago. It's about the magical power of CO2 being able to ruin climates. I contend that the contribution of CO2 in greenhouse gas effect is neglible compared with the contributions and feedback effects of water vapor.
We could start a thread to find that out.
A few useful links:
Ivan, have you read "Voodoo Science" by Robert Park? He makes a good case that science in the news is mostly for entertainment purposes and as a result, the actual quality of the reporting (scientifically) is terrible. Yes, "the good doctor" is the basis of the article, but Reuters is equally at fault for its content because they picked the story up and ran with it. You'd never see an article like that in a reputable science magazine.
Ivan, I don't see any of that in your Reueters link. Its not an article about a study/experiment, its "expert" isn't qualified to be speaking on the subject, and its one fact (the heat wave in europe last year) is taken out of context. You said yourself the story raised a red-flag for you when you first read it. I really think that sort of story (and discussion of that sort of story) is counterproductive.
Separate names with a comma.