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.'"
I was 100% on board with global warming until the email leaks of a couple years ago - it seems like someone is not shooting straight here...I am not a scientist but I can tell you I now have some doubts about the validity of the climate science.
... and you are not outraged by the deceptions and manipulations on the part of the advocates of AGW then you are either one of the authors, or you are a fanatic who accepts any act, no matter how bad, as long as your side does it; this makes you a dangerous, anti-intellectual sycophant.
Legitimate scientists do not need to rig the peer review process and rig the paper publishing systems.
By their actions these people outed themselves as charlatans and frauds who lacked sufficient confidence in the "science" they were pushing... they clearly did not believe the quality of their work could withstand the scrutiny that all other (actual) science regularly gets as part of the normal order
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~
What on Earth makes you think the NYT or CNN is more credible a source than FOX?
Show me a news source that isn't catering to ratings (i.e., money), and I'll show you one worth listening to. Until then, they're all suspect, and all they spew is bollocks.