Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Explain Why Chairman of House Committee On Science Is Wrong
Lasrick writes "Michael Oppenheimer and Kevin Trenberth take apart Rep. Lamar Smith's (R-Tex.) Washington Post op/ed on climate science saying: 'Contrary to Smith's assertions, there is conclusive evidence that climate change worsened the damage caused by Superstorm Sandy. Sea levels in New York City harbors have risen by more than a foot since the beginning of the 20th century. Had the storm surge not been riding on higher seas, there would have been less flooding and less damage. Warmer air also allows storms such as Sandy to hold more moisture and dump more rainfall, exacerbating flooding.'"
This is part of the reason why people are against global warming - when people mention reasons why they don't believe it, or ask real questions about it seeking clearer understanding, all we get is attacked, demeaned and insulted.
One of the things I do remember from high school science class is that when you don't understand something in science, you should ask hose saying it to clarify or explain their position, that is all I am going - I thought that was the scientific process, but apparently in the case of global warming, this doesn't apply because its easier to just insult those who dont clearly understand or would like details.
Than I have reason to doubt your ability to perform critical thinking.
The "leaks" worst offense was that in some cases scientists' felt pressure to modify the way they presented their facts to the public.
Scientists, just like the rest of us are human. The client researchers' work is constantly under question, misinterpreted and derided by the simpletons on the right.
It is a natural in this situation for people to have to take a "war footing".
Portions of the public have refused accept that the overwhelming majority of facts point to one conclusion. They blow out of proportion that .1% which MAY support ulterior conclusions. As a reaction to that some elements of the informed population realize that some portion of the uniformed population are not capable of making logical and reasoned conclusions.
This results in the unfortunate situation where some of the informed must manipulate the incompetent to move society forward.
Faux Knews is ridiculous. As one study proved that watched recordings of more than a month of their prime time shows, not a single thing they said in the show was true. Not one damn thing. They are proven liars. They even went to court and fought and won for the right to lie constantly. They admitted it under oath in court. They lie. They do nothing but lie. It's the same with you CONservatives.
Unfortunately, climate scientists rarely show even that modest degree of scientific care and honesty. Don't believe me? Just RTFA.
Also, I don't even have a problem with saying that CO2 is the primary driver of increased temperatures - but I do have a problem with
a) anything that goes beyond CO2 (that is 1.3K for a doubling) that is pure speculation, consists of poorly researched feedback mechanisms, with the poor state of research in cloud formation being among the worst offenders and most important negative feedbacks that are currently being ignored due to the poor state of knowledge...
Bullshit. You're ignoring the decades of research on these topics. You're ignoring the physics, and the simulations built on those physics. Now you may simply be ignorant of this, or you're being willfully deceitful, but either way these are certainly not "poorly understood phenomena".
b) I do have a problem with the constant one-sided discussion of the effects of increased temperatures. They are always held in the tone of horoscopes and greek oracles to avoid any clear statements that could be easily contradicted. "Extreme weather events" being the worst offender. That's says nothing and is obviously taylored to feed a constant media frenzy. This is combined with a complete lack of reporting on past "extreme weather events". Thus even decidetly average events like hurricanes Katrina or Sandy (in their historical and geographical context!) become "unprecedented monster storms", which is just laughable for anyone who bothered to look into the history of hurricanes on the US south and east coast.
That's because you have no idea what you are talking about. And it is people like you which make scientists not even want to bother to try and explain anything. If you don't even understand the most basic research concepts and results, why bother trying to explain something more advanced. You don't want to listen. You don't want to know. And that's perfectly fine. But you have no credibility even with someone who has a passing knowledge of the actual research,
~X~