I'm looking forward to your other links tomorrow, as none of the above citations meet my request for an example of a known scientist who has called Lomborgs work representative of their field.
The first two has next to no experience in enviromental science (Hirshleifer published a little bit on water supplies in the 60's - but that's all that I can find), and the third review is far from glowing.
While it is true that it was published by Cambridge Press, you missed out that it was published by their Social Sciences division. This is a big problem if one wants to treat it as a scientific work. If you wanted to find out about physics, which would be a more authoritive work, a physics book out of the CP science division, or a book of feminist intrepetations of physics out of the CP social sciences division? If your going with the first option, why not apply the same rules to Lomborgs work?
As for stating "he's a statistician, not an earth scientist, so he takes for granted the numbers already being used in the field, and applies statistical analysis to them", the problem that I'm trying to point out is that by biased selection of "the numbers already being used in the field", he can get whatever result that he likes. For example, on his section of global warming he uses the modelling of William Nordhaus, while ignoring many of the well documented theoretical shortcomings of his models. (Source). This isn't science.
An interesting review of Lomborg's work on enviromental economics, can be found here. The author's make my above point a little bit more aggressively; "Statistician Lomborg blatantly distorts the evidence by systematically selecting statistics to support his claims that global welfare is generally improving and environmental policy is unnecessary, while denying catastrophic risks such as prolonged drought in major food growing areas (though such events cannot be ruled out by climate models). "
I wouldn't necessarily call those questioning him the height of the field either -- as the Economist was quick to point out, those objecting to his work are mostly the same crowd of doubtful prognosticians who brought us global cooling theory right up through the mid-eighties, before jumping on the global warming bandwagon.
That's a very broad brush your using. Can you find any link between global cooling and any of the three author's I've cited in this post (Felix FitzRoy, Ian Smith and John Quiggin)?
Anyway, all of the reviewers who you have tarred (Schnider (sp?) and co) have far more peer reviewed papers than Lomborg (who I just checked on the Current Contents database, and has the grand total of 1 (published almost 7 years ago - and in a non related field).
From what I've observed, both sides have their fair share of PR people, nuts and liars. However, the skeptics lack something which the other side had; science. The vast majority of climatical scientists believe in human induced global warming. The vast majority of scientific papers on the subject support global warming.
Your link to global cooling in 1975 is also illustrative of the propaganda of the climate skeptics. While many people thought that a cooling period could result in the 70's, their wasn't a single scientific paper published in the 70's on a global ice age (at least not in the sense used in this article). On the other hand there are thousands of scientific papers on global warming. This massive difference is ignored by climate skeptics who try and equate the two.
I have only read small parts of Lomborg's book, but from the little that I have read, I wouldn't call it a scientific work (as none of it has been published in scientific journals), but I would be interested to know if a single well known scientist has called Lomborgs work represatative of their field. I've seen lots of scientists attack it for being biased in their particular field, but none support it. Do you know of any?
John Daly is hardly a skeptic. He uncritically accepts evidence that supports his claims, and ignores anything that contradicts it.
An example, he uses the Island of Tuvula as an example. He shows some raw data, but ignores an inconveint analysis of it (which can be found here) which finds that the sea levels around Tuvula are rising (abit with a large uncertainity in the data) at a rate which is line with the IPCC estimates.
Having read a lot of John Daly's evidence I think global warming falls into the same category, trendy pseudo-science.
Whereas I (having read some of John Daly's "evidence", plus a whole lot more peer reviewed scientific articles of global warming) think that global warming is a well respected scientific theory who's critics have lost the science battle along time ago, and have hence shifted the debate into a propaganda war.
From my very limited understanding of the work (I've studied in the Research School where the work was done, and have been to a couple of talks on it) it should reduce the effectiveness of nanotechnology. If a machine does process, then as it gets smaller the probability of it doing the reverse process increases. If one could make it infinitly small, it would do the reverse process at excaltly the same rate as it did the forward process.
The reason why this got into the list, is that Dennis Evens and co-workers at the Australian National University have hypothesised for quite a while that you can break the 2nd law when dimensions or time scales are very small, but last year they managed to get experimental evidence for it.
There is nothing wrong with suggesting that there is differences between genders.
Likewise I would suggest that the difference between people honesty interested in the truth, and bigots, would be that the first group would find some sort of evidence to back up the women inferior at physics claim before making it.
A more extreme case of this is Australia. There are whole ecosystems built around fire.
With the introduction of other plants, there is a interesting cycle occuring. New plants insert themselves into Aussie forests, slowly taking over. Fire comes along. Aussie plants recover orders of magnitude faster and take back what they lost. Introduced plants slowly move back in.
From my very limited understanding of the Australian skys, one major problem will be the lack of moisture over the drought areas. It's no good trying to induce rain, when there is no water overhead.
The kea is pretty dam smart, but is there an objective scientific test for intelligence which would let us rank species? I'm pretty sure that their isn't.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but "global warming" isn't real.
Sorry, but it will take more than a few links to some propaganda sites to burst my bubble.
Every site you have linked too is serious flawed. Rather than try and determine the truth, they are attempt to misled by selective use of evidence.
As for your example of the Gallup Poll, you have forgotten to mention that it was taken in 1991 (note, I'm not suggesting that you are trying to misled here, I assume that you read the Cato piece by Lindzen). Anyone, who is even remotely up to date on the science literature, would know that the knowledge base, and experimental evidence has massively increased since then. Also, you have failed to mention, that the poll found that while the poll found that only 19% of members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union though that the current (as of 1991) was human induced, a much larger (66%) proportion thought that human induced warming was occurring.
The misleading use of these results have caused the Gallup organization to state "These writers have taken survey results out of context that appear to show scientists do not believe that human-induced global warming is occurring." (Source)
Your statement "including statements from so-called "scientific societies" that turn out to contain nothing more than cosmetologists, psychologists, gynecologists, et. al." is also flat out wrong. To use one of the societies listed as an example, the Australian Academy of Science consists of a large number of Australia's top scientists. While you may dismiss their views as "misinformation, propaganda and flat-out Junk Science", this reflects more on your objectivity than them.
Rather than attacking Gore's book, perhaps you would be better off reading the science. The website www.ipcc.ch contains links to the IPCC reports on climate change, which are the best summaries of the primary scientific lit.
The sites that you link to are worthless as scientific pieces, and would be better off in a political science course on propaganda. The Cato piece by Lindzen is quite old (I'm not sure of the date, as Cato have conveniently not dated it) so any conclusions it makes of the scientific consensus are worthless (as times have changed). However, Lindzen, uses the Gallup poll conveniently missing out the results which would contradict his thesis. Also, he mentions the approx. 150 authors of the IPCC report, once again missing out the large number of reviewers, which would substantially boost this number.
Your second site is worse, as it is up to date. Normally, I wouldn't bring up the authors qualifications, however, as you have dismissed the joint statement by many scientific societies as by made up of "nothing more than cosmetologists, psychologists, gynecologists, et. al" I'm sure that you will be disappointed to hear that the author of this site is a retired sailor who hasn't published a single scientific paper in his life. His site is a load of old propaganda and selective quoting. To use one example, he states (re. Rising sea levels on small Pacific Islands) "there is the record from Tuvalu, the Pacific Island country which has been the most strident about sea levels. Their claims are patently false", is wrong. Had Daly been keeping up with current events he would be aware that sea levels around Tuvalu are rising (abit with a high level of uncertainty), and the rate of rise is well within the rates predicted by the IPCC. Daly is either unaware of this, or choses to pretend that analysis which have found this do not exist.
Your third link, to the well known lobbyist Milloy, doesn't really provide anything useful, perhaps you should link to a specific claim made by Milloy, rather than his whole site. I'm not going to critise the whole thing, but I'd be happy to examine any specific claim. The same applies to your last site.
As a more broad critism of your links, rather than relying on websites made up by anti-greenhouse activists, perhaps you would be best citing peer reviewed scientific data.
The United States is not a democacy. It is a Republic. In a democacy, everyone gets to vote. In the United States, everyone gets to vote for a representative to vote for them.
Wow, you've just described a representative democracy.
I haven't read enough about Kellerman and the spotted owl to accurately comment on them, however, your dismissal of global warming as scaremongering only suggests that it is you, not government scientists that lack credibility.
Global warming (and humanities role in causing it) is a well respected theory within the scientific community. As an example, this site, contains a joint statement from a large number of scientific societies about global warming. It should be easy to find more, from organisations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the AGU.
One thing you seem to be really missing is that skepticism is an essential part of the scientific method.
Of course skepticism is part of the scientific method, however, dismissing evidence that doesn't fit your ideology without a shred of evidence isn't skepticism. This applies to both the creationist and the climate skeptic.
You're using big, generalizing terms like 'at a fundamental level' 'there is no difference', etc. etc. That's not even bad science. It's just bad logic.
What part of my posts had to do with science (bad or otherwise)? Pointing out the similarities in arguements between creationists, climate skeptics, crystal lovers, and whateverother peusdoscientific jokes are floating around out there isn't science. It was a simple observation, but one that unless you can supply evidence to support your claims, stands.
I don't believe that I'm overgeneralising. At a fundamental level, there is no difference between the creationist who says that the thousands of biological scientists are wrong because of an entrenched buereacracy, and the climate change skeptic who says that the thousands of climatical scientists are wrong because of an entrenched buereacracy.
Wow, that's the exact same answer given by creationists, flat earthers, and cystal lovers when trying to explain why scientists don't believe their pet theories.
I guess that all ideologues really do think the same.
I can't speak for the poster to whom you replied to, but I have read many scientific articles on global warming (I've almost finished my PhD in chemistry (non-atmospheric stuff, but includes many of the fundamentals behind atmospheric chemistry), and I have worked with atmospheric chemists at various times in the past), and your statements strike me as wrong.
The vast majority of climatical scientists support the theory that humans are contributing to global warming. As an example, this links to an IPCC report into the science behind global warming. As you can see, the author and reviewer list is very large. On the otherhand, the number of greenhouse skeptics who actively research in the area is quite low. One doesn't even need to take one's shoe's off to count them.
A series of international level agreements lead to something being done, and now inital indications are that the hole in the ozone is starting to shrink.
Meanwhile the industry lobby groups, and variously ideologues bitched and moaned, and ended up with egg on their faces.
So, where is the trending data over a few thousand years saying that man and his theorized greenhouse gases are heating things up?
Reconstructed climate data from the last 1000 years can be found here.
So... If somebody ever proves with real evidence, and trending, that these greenhouse gases are the culperate for ALL our problems...
Nobody has ever claimed that greenhouse gases are resonible for all of our problems.
what are we going to do about those pesky things called volcanos? Tell them that they can't spew millions of tons of greenhouse gases?
Nothing, we evolved with volcanos, and their effect on the earth's climate. It's when we started pumping in extra greenhouses gaes, over and above what volcanos contribute, that problems occur.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm looking forward to your other links tomorrow, as none of the above citations meet my request for an example of a known scientist who has called Lomborgs work representative of their field.
The first two has next to no experience in enviromental science (Hirshleifer published a little bit on water supplies in the 60's - but that's all that I can find), and the third review is far from glowing.
I've got to disagree with your post.
While it is true that it was published by Cambridge Press, you missed out that it was published by their Social Sciences division. This is a big problem if one wants to treat it as a scientific work. If you wanted to find out about physics, which would be a more authoritive work, a physics book out of the CP science division, or a book of feminist intrepetations of physics out of the CP social sciences division? If your going with the first option, why not apply the same rules to Lomborgs work?
As for stating "he's a statistician, not an earth scientist, so he takes for granted the numbers already being used in the field, and applies statistical analysis to them", the problem that I'm trying to point out is that by biased selection of "the numbers already being used in the field", he can get whatever result that he likes. For example, on his section of global warming he uses the modelling of William Nordhaus, while ignoring many of the well documented theoretical shortcomings of his models. (Source). This isn't science.
An interesting review of Lomborg's work on enviromental economics, can be found here. The author's make my above point a little bit more aggressively; "Statistician Lomborg blatantly distorts the evidence by systematically selecting statistics to support his claims that global welfare is generally improving and environmental policy is unnecessary, while denying catastrophic risks such as prolonged drought in major food growing areas (though such events cannot be ruled out by climate models). "
I wouldn't necessarily call those questioning him the height of the field either -- as the Economist was quick to point out, those objecting to his work are mostly the same crowd of doubtful prognosticians who brought us global cooling theory right up through the mid-eighties, before jumping on the global warming bandwagon.
That's a very broad brush your using. Can you find any link between global cooling and any of the three author's I've cited in this post (Felix FitzRoy, Ian Smith and John Quiggin)?
Anyway, all of the reviewers who you have tarred (Schnider (sp?) and co) have far more peer reviewed papers than Lomborg (who I just checked on the Current Contents database, and has the grand total of 1 (published almost 7 years ago - and in a non related field).
From what I've observed, both sides have their fair share of PR people, nuts and liars. However, the skeptics lack something which the other side had; science. The vast majority of climatical scientists believe in human induced global warming. The vast majority of scientific papers on the subject support global warming.
Your link to global cooling in 1975 is also illustrative of the propaganda of the climate skeptics. While many people thought that a cooling period could result in the 70's, their wasn't a single scientific paper published in the 70's on a global ice age (at least not in the sense used in this article). On the other hand there are thousands of scientific papers on global warming. This massive difference is ignored by climate skeptics who try and equate the two.
I have only read small parts of Lomborg's book, but from the little that I have read, I wouldn't call it a scientific work (as none of it has been published in scientific journals), but I would be interested to know if a single well known scientist has called Lomborgs work represatative of their field. I've seen lots of scientists attack it for being biased in their particular field, but none support it. Do you know of any?
John Daly is hardly a skeptic. He uncritically accepts evidence that supports his claims, and ignores anything that contradicts it.
An example, he uses the Island of Tuvula as an example. He shows some raw data, but ignores an inconveint analysis of it (which can be found here) which finds that the sea levels around Tuvula are rising (abit with a large uncertainity in the data) at a rate which is line with the IPCC estimates.
Having read a lot of John Daly's evidence I think global warming falls into the same category, trendy pseudo-science.
Whereas I (having read some of John Daly's "evidence", plus a whole lot more peer reviewed scientific articles of global warming) think that global warming is a well respected scientific theory who's critics have lost the science battle along time ago, and have hence shifted the debate into a propaganda war.
No it's not completely obvious.
There is a massive body of work behind Fluctuation Theorem. Try reading the scientific lit. before dismissing it.
From my very limited understanding of the work (I've studied in the Research School where the work was done, and have been to a couple of talks on it) it should reduce the effectiveness of nanotechnology. If a machine does process, then as it gets smaller the probability of it doing the reverse process increases. If one could make it infinitly small, it would do the reverse process at excaltly the same rate as it did the forward process.
The reason why this got into the list, is that Dennis Evens and co-workers at the Australian National University have hypothesised for quite a while that you can break the 2nd law when dimensions or time scales are very small, but last year they managed to get experimental evidence for it.
There is nothing wrong with suggesting that there is differences between genders.
Likewise I would suggest that the difference between people honesty interested in the truth, and bigots, would be that the first group would find some sort of evidence to back up the women inferior at physics claim before making it.
A more extreme case of this is Australia. There are whole ecosystems built around fire.
With the introduction of other plants, there is a interesting cycle occuring. New plants insert themselves into Aussie forests, slowly taking over. Fire comes along. Aussie plants recover orders of magnitude faster and take back what they lost. Introduced plants slowly move back in.
From my very limited understanding of the Australian skys, one major problem will be the lack of moisture over the drought areas. It's no good trying to induce rain, when there is no water overhead.
That would be the kea.
The kea is pretty dam smart, but is there an objective scientific test for intelligence which would let us rank species? I'm pretty sure that their isn't.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but "global warming" isn't real.
Sorry, but it will take more than a few links to some propaganda sites to burst my bubble.
Every site you have linked too is serious flawed. Rather than try and determine the truth, they are attempt to misled by selective use of evidence.
As for your example of the Gallup Poll, you have forgotten to mention that it was taken in 1991 (note, I'm not suggesting that you are trying to misled here, I assume that you read the Cato piece by Lindzen). Anyone, who is even remotely up to date on the science literature, would know that the knowledge base, and experimental evidence has massively increased since then. Also, you have failed to mention, that the poll found that while the poll found that only 19% of members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union though that the current (as of 1991) was human induced, a much larger (66%) proportion thought that human induced warming was occurring.
The misleading use of these results have caused the Gallup organization to state "These writers have taken survey results out of context that appear to show scientists do not believe that human-induced global warming is occurring." (Source)
Your statement "including statements from so-called "scientific societies" that turn out to contain nothing more than cosmetologists, psychologists, gynecologists, et. al." is also flat out wrong. To use one of the societies listed as an example, the Australian Academy of Science consists of a large number of Australia's top scientists. While you may dismiss their views as "misinformation, propaganda and flat-out Junk Science", this reflects more on your objectivity than them.
Rather than attacking Gore's book, perhaps you would be better off reading the science. The website www.ipcc.ch contains links to the IPCC reports on climate change, which are the best summaries of the primary scientific lit.
The sites that you link to are worthless as scientific pieces, and would be better off in a political science course on propaganda. The Cato piece by Lindzen is quite old (I'm not sure of the date, as Cato have conveniently not dated it) so any conclusions it makes of the scientific consensus are worthless (as times have changed). However, Lindzen, uses the Gallup poll conveniently missing out the results which would contradict his thesis. Also, he mentions the approx. 150 authors of the IPCC report, once again missing out the large number of reviewers, which would substantially boost this number.
Your second site is worse, as it is up to date. Normally, I wouldn't bring up the authors qualifications, however, as you have dismissed the joint statement by many scientific societies as by made up of "nothing more than cosmetologists, psychologists, gynecologists, et. al" I'm sure that you will be disappointed to hear that the author of this site is a retired sailor who hasn't published a single scientific paper in his life. His site is a load of old propaganda and selective quoting. To use one example, he states (re. Rising sea levels on small Pacific Islands) "there is the record from Tuvalu, the Pacific Island country which has been the most strident about sea levels. Their claims are patently false", is wrong. Had Daly been keeping up with current events he would be aware that sea levels around Tuvalu are rising (abit with a high level of uncertainty), and the rate of rise is well within the rates predicted by the IPCC. Daly is either unaware of this, or choses to pretend that analysis which have found this do not exist.
Your third link, to the well known lobbyist Milloy, doesn't really provide anything useful, perhaps you should link to a specific claim made by Milloy, rather than his whole site. I'm not going to critise the whole thing, but I'd be happy to examine any specific claim. The same applies to your last site.
As a more broad critism of your links, rather than relying on websites made up by anti-greenhouse activists, perhaps you would be best citing peer reviewed scientific data.
The United States is not a democacy. It is a Republic. In a democacy, everyone gets to vote. In the United States, everyone gets to vote for a representative to vote for them.
Wow, you've just described a representative democracy.
Remember, the United States is not a democracy, its a republic. There is a very big difference.
Wrong. A republic isn't mutally exclusive to democracy.
The US, is both a republic and a representative democracy.
I haven't read enough about Kellerman and the spotted owl to accurately comment on them, however, your dismissal of global warming as scaremongering only suggests that it is you, not government scientists that lack credibility.
Global warming (and humanities role in causing it) is a well respected theory within the scientific community. As an example, this site, contains a joint statement from a large number of scientific societies about global warming. It should be easy to find more, from organisations such as the National Academy of Sciences and the AGU.
One thing you seem to be really missing is that skepticism is an essential part of the scientific method.
Of course skepticism is part of the scientific method, however, dismissing evidence that doesn't fit your ideology without a shred of evidence isn't skepticism. This applies to both the creationist and the climate skeptic.
You're using big, generalizing terms like 'at a fundamental level' 'there is no difference', etc. etc. That's not even bad science. It's just bad logic.
What part of my posts had to do with science (bad or otherwise)? Pointing out the similarities in arguements between creationists, climate skeptics, crystal lovers, and whateverother peusdoscientific jokes are floating around out there isn't science. It was a simple observation, but one that unless you can supply evidence to support your claims, stands.
I don't believe that I'm overgeneralising. At a fundamental level, there is no difference between the creationist who says that the thousands of biological scientists are wrong because of an entrenched buereacracy, and the climate change skeptic who says that the thousands of climatical scientists are wrong because of an entrenched buereacracy.
Nice little theory you have, been one the assumptions behind it is horribly flawed, namely:
The amount of greenhouse gases released by a single volcanic eruption puts all our greenhouse emissions to shame.
Human's cause approx. 150 times the amount of CO2 to be released each year as volcanos. (Link)
Wow, that's the exact same answer given by creationists, flat earthers, and cystal lovers when trying to explain why scientists don't believe their pet theories.
I guess that all ideologues really do think the same.
Another fact that is convieniently ignored is that the rate of warming is far greater than any observed warming within recent geologic history.
I can't speak for the poster to whom you replied to, but I have read many scientific articles on global warming (I've almost finished my PhD in chemistry (non-atmospheric stuff, but includes many of the fundamentals behind atmospheric chemistry), and I have worked with atmospheric chemists at various times in the past), and your statements strike me as wrong.
The vast majority of climatical scientists support the theory that humans are contributing to global warming. As an example, this links to an IPCC report into the science behind global warming. As you can see, the author and reviewer list is very large. On the otherhand, the number of greenhouse skeptics who actively research in the area is quite low. One doesn't even need to take one's shoe's off to count them.
Really, it's currently working well for CFC's.
A series of international level agreements lead to something being done, and now inital indications are that the hole in the ozone is starting to shrink.
Meanwhile the industry lobby groups, and variously ideologues bitched and moaned, and ended up with egg on their faces.
So, where is the trending data over a few thousand years saying that man and his theorized greenhouse gases are heating things up?
Reconstructed climate data from the last 1000 years can be found here.
So... If somebody ever proves with real evidence, and trending, that these greenhouse gases are the culperate for ALL our problems...
Nobody has ever claimed that greenhouse gases are resonible for all of our problems.
what are we going to do about those pesky things called volcanos? Tell them that they can't spew millions of tons of greenhouse gases?
Nothing, we evolved with volcanos, and their effect on the earth's climate. It's when we started pumping in extra greenhouses gaes, over and above what volcanos contribute, that problems occur.
And...
Just because the earth has warmed and cooled in the past, doesn't mean that humans aren't causing the current warming.
The scientific evidence strongly points to human induced warming, hence preventable, hence, it's only a bitch if we let it.