But there appears to be no firm line in the sand here. Those ideologically opposed to AGW frequently try to use what at least sound like scientific arguments to attack the theory. The sad fact is that in many cases they're using similar attacks that have been used by Creationists in the past to attack biology, genetics, geology, cosmology and any other theory that challenged their ideologically-driven beliefs.
Beyond that, to be skeptical of any theory, you have to understand the theory, and the data that purports to support the theory. When you get a dozens of posters making claims like "it hasn't warmed in 17 years", you're simply not dealing with people who have the faintest idea what they're talking about. That's not even dealing with the people who go on about the "church of AGW" and "AGW is going to be demolished any day now" (these are literally picked right out of the Creationist arsenal).
And then when you get the few people who do have the expertise to critique AGW, you end up with guys like Spencer, who don't actually even try to publish papers critiquing AGW, but basically are paid shills for the Heartland Institute. Bengtsson is in the real minority, in that he actually tried to publish a paper, albeit a very poor paper, so I guess you have to give him points for that. But, considering he is a publishing researcher, I think you have to start wondering if he did this intentionally so that denialist newspapers like the Telegraph could claim "You see, the AGW crowd stifles dissent!" Again, this similar trick has been used a very few times by Creationists/IDers (the Sternberg-Myer affair, where a pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design paper did get published in an obscure journal). It gets a great deal of press, of course, and now Bengtsson's crap paper will be brought up by every pseudo-skeptic for years to come, because the one thing that is universally true of all pseudo-skeptics, whatever scientific field they're attacking, is that no attack is so bad or so debunked that it can't be dusted off and shoved and used again.
The sad fact is that it does mask the actual debates among climatologists, which are far more interesting and far more pertinent.
I'm sorry. What the fuck does Al gore have to do with anything? I realize he made a movie seven or eight years ago about AGW, but so what? I haven't watched, have no intention of watching it, and actually read what scientists say, because, you know, I'm actually interested in understanding theories rather than finding convenient stramwen to attack.
I'm sure I could find all kinds of things out by watching Fox. At the best of times, I ignore science journalism, and I'd no more go to Fox for science reporting than I'd go to Stormfront for race relations.
By cite I mean actual published work; journals, primary literature, you know, where actual scientists report their work, and not some journalist, blogger or columnist who is either posting shit due to his ideological leanings, or because he's just simply a moron.
The Daily Telegraph has been one of the leading major newspapers in attacking AGW. Christopher Booker, a kook that rejects evolution and claims tobacco and asbestos are not harmful, is given frequent and prominent space to make all sorts of attacks against AGW. So I think it goes a little beyond simply wanting a controversy to sell papers, and makes the Daily Telegraph, and similar papers like Wall Street Journal, the National Post in Canada denier-friendly outlets.
This is an absurd exaggeration that relies on a very dubious definition of the word "wrong". Is Newtonian Mechanics wrong? Strictly speaking, I suppose so, as it does not adequately explain the full range of observations, and in some cases does indeed get the answers wrong. But if you look at Newtonian mechanics as simply a simplified extrapolation of General Relativity that applies to non-relativistic equations, it still works very well; well enough to launch probes to Mars or the outer reaches of the solar system, and useful enough for many ordinary physics problems.
Yes, certain theories, like the steady state theory of the universe, have been falsified, but they certainly weren't falsified by crap papers. But, by and large, not many scientific theories are out and out falsified, so your use of the word "wrong" is simply hyperbolic.
No one says consensus means the end of research in a field, and no one says that consensus cannot be wrong. Indeed, consensus is often a target for scientists, which is why, for instance, even though the Standard Model has been a highly successful theory, particle physicists are desperate to peer beyond it to find new physics. And when that happens, the Standard Model still won't be "wrong", it will simply be subsumed into some larger theory.
All the evidence we have points to CO2 emissions over the last three centuries leading to climate change that cannot be explained by non-anthropogenic processes. We have theories to explain it, that no one believes are complete or the final word, but there is a sufficiently high degree of agreement between models and via different lines of evidence that it is not unreasonable to say with a high degree of certainty that there are man-made factors contributing to current observations, and then continued CO2 emissions will accelerate this process. The exact degree degree to which emissions can be attributed is a matter of debate, but very few climatologists argue with the core claims of AGW. Even worse for the skeptics is that every time they claim to find the smoking gun, it turns out to be their own camp playing rhetorical tricks, outright lying, or in this particular case, trying to publish a crappy paper.
The CO2 from coal, oil and other fossil fuels was already in the atmosphere? Really? Wow! I don't know whether you're trying to be funny, or are just plain stupid.
It was. The paper was crap, and further revelations put the author's crap paper in greater perspective. He's politically motivated, wasn't interested in a meaningful scientific critique, and has an ax to grind.
Who cares what NPR says. A great deal of information by the actual researchers is out there, so quit fixating on public figures and media outlets, and get the information from the horse's mouth. Heck, I don't even read SciAm anymore because it's become more of a science journalism rag, and I'd rather read what the scientists themselves say, whatever the particular field of research is.
The science on the Standard Model isn't settled, but that hardly means the Standard Model is wrong or falsified. It means it is incomplete. Not having an absolutely perfect theory (if such a thing is even achievable) does not mean the theory you have lacks all utility. There is a great deal of evidence for AGW. Is it complete, is it settled? No, but then again, neither is any scientific theory. Why does anthropogenic climate change receive this kind of special treatment.
Oh that's right, because someone stands to lose money, and, heaven forbid, people might have to change their behaviors.
What memo? That AGW is real, that three centuries of barfing millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere isn't a climate-neutral activity? That memo?
I'd call it a very biased paper that allows its editorial department masquerade as its reporting department. Witness the incredible number of anti-NHS stories that were one-sided, biased, and clearly intended to underwrite a series of columns by various right wing regulars demanding the NHS be demolished, privatized or something between the two.
And yes, the Guardian does the same thing. British newspapers are, by and large, utter crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Or I can go buy a notebook for $300, keep my Nexus 7, and not shell out huge amounts of money for one big fucking tablet.
The point of the ISS wasn't really to do science in space, but rather to learn the problems and solutions of long term habitation.
Which has nothing to do with climate research. I can't think of organisations in a better position to do atmospheric research than NASA and NOAA.
Translation: I hare science that makes me feel bad.
Have you read the paper?
I'll come in again.
Whether I was a cop or not, if someone raised a gun and I possessed a gun, I would most certainly not wait to find out what his next move might be.
Let me know when Spencer actually does publish his critique of AGW. Writing oped pieces in the WSJ is not publishing.
But there appears to be no firm line in the sand here. Those ideologically opposed to AGW frequently try to use what at least sound like scientific arguments to attack the theory. The sad fact is that in many cases they're using similar attacks that have been used by Creationists in the past to attack biology, genetics, geology, cosmology and any other theory that challenged their ideologically-driven beliefs.
Beyond that, to be skeptical of any theory, you have to understand the theory, and the data that purports to support the theory. When you get a dozens of posters making claims like "it hasn't warmed in 17 years", you're simply not dealing with people who have the faintest idea what they're talking about. That's not even dealing with the people who go on about the "church of AGW" and "AGW is going to be demolished any day now" (these are literally picked right out of the Creationist arsenal).
And then when you get the few people who do have the expertise to critique AGW, you end up with guys like Spencer, who don't actually even try to publish papers critiquing AGW, but basically are paid shills for the Heartland Institute. Bengtsson is in the real minority, in that he actually tried to publish a paper, albeit a very poor paper, so I guess you have to give him points for that. But, considering he is a publishing researcher, I think you have to start wondering if he did this intentionally so that denialist newspapers like the Telegraph could claim "You see, the AGW crowd stifles dissent!" Again, this similar trick has been used a very few times by Creationists/IDers (the Sternberg-Myer affair, where a pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design paper did get published in an obscure journal). It gets a great deal of press, of course, and now Bengtsson's crap paper will be brought up by every pseudo-skeptic for years to come, because the one thing that is universally true of all pseudo-skeptics, whatever scientific field they're attacking, is that no attack is so bad or so debunked that it can't be dusted off and shoved and used again.
The sad fact is that it does mask the actual debates among climatologists, which are far more interesting and far more pertinent.
I'm sorry. What the fuck does Al gore have to do with anything? I realize he made a movie seven or eight years ago about AGW, but so what? I haven't watched, have no intention of watching it, and actually read what scientists say, because, you know, I'm actually interested in understanding theories rather than finding convenient stramwen to attack.
I'm sure I could find all kinds of things out by watching Fox. At the best of times, I ignore science journalism, and I'd no more go to Fox for science reporting than I'd go to Stormfront for race relations.
By cite I mean actual published work; journals, primary literature, you know, where actual scientists report their work, and not some journalist, blogger or columnist who is either posting shit due to his ideological leanings, or because he's just simply a moron.
Can you provide citations where all the carbon in fossil fuels came from the atmosphere.
It can be falsified like any other theory, by comparing it to observations. It's science, you idiot.
The Daily Telegraph has been one of the leading major newspapers in attacking AGW. Christopher Booker, a kook that rejects evolution and claims tobacco and asbestos are not harmful, is given frequent and prominent space to make all sorts of attacks against AGW. So I think it goes a little beyond simply wanting a controversy to sell papers, and makes the Daily Telegraph, and similar papers like Wall Street Journal, the National Post in Canada denier-friendly outlets.
Could you provide citations where the only source of carbon is from the atmosphere...
This is an absurd exaggeration that relies on a very dubious definition of the word "wrong". Is Newtonian Mechanics wrong? Strictly speaking, I suppose so, as it does not adequately explain the full range of observations, and in some cases does indeed get the answers wrong. But if you look at Newtonian mechanics as simply a simplified extrapolation of General Relativity that applies to non-relativistic equations, it still works very well; well enough to launch probes to Mars or the outer reaches of the solar system, and useful enough for many ordinary physics problems.
Yes, certain theories, like the steady state theory of the universe, have been falsified, but they certainly weren't falsified by crap papers. But, by and large, not many scientific theories are out and out falsified, so your use of the word "wrong" is simply hyperbolic.
No one says consensus means the end of research in a field, and no one says that consensus cannot be wrong. Indeed, consensus is often a target for scientists, which is why, for instance, even though the Standard Model has been a highly successful theory, particle physicists are desperate to peer beyond it to find new physics. And when that happens, the Standard Model still won't be "wrong", it will simply be subsumed into some larger theory.
All the evidence we have points to CO2 emissions over the last three centuries leading to climate change that cannot be explained by non-anthropogenic processes. We have theories to explain it, that no one believes are complete or the final word, but there is a sufficiently high degree of agreement between models and via different lines of evidence that it is not unreasonable to say with a high degree of certainty that there are man-made factors contributing to current observations, and then continued CO2 emissions will accelerate this process. The exact degree degree to which emissions can be attributed is a matter of debate, but very few climatologists argue with the core claims of AGW. Even worse for the skeptics is that every time they claim to find the smoking gun, it turns out to be their own camp playing rhetorical tricks, outright lying, or in this particular case, trying to publish a crappy paper.
The CO2 from coal, oil and other fossil fuels was already in the atmosphere? Really? Wow! I don't know whether you're trying to be funny, or are just plain stupid.
And can you define "better" here?
Translation: I'm an ignorant fucking halfwit who is too brain dead to even read the summary.
Earth's climate is hardly the only complex system that we study.
It was. The paper was crap, and further revelations put the author's crap paper in greater perspective. He's politically motivated, wasn't interested in a meaningful scientific critique, and has an ax to grind.
Particularly when the motive of the news item is to attack a scientific theory you don't like.
Who cares what NPR says. A great deal of information by the actual researchers is out there, so quit fixating on public figures and media outlets, and get the information from the horse's mouth. Heck, I don't even read SciAm anymore because it's become more of a science journalism rag, and I'd rather read what the scientists themselves say, whatever the particular field of research is.
The science on the Standard Model isn't settled, but that hardly means the Standard Model is wrong or falsified. It means it is incomplete. Not having an absolutely perfect theory (if such a thing is even achievable) does not mean the theory you have lacks all utility. There is a great deal of evidence for AGW. Is it complete, is it settled? No, but then again, neither is any scientific theory. Why does anthropogenic climate change receive this kind of special treatment.
Oh that's right, because someone stands to lose money, and, heaven forbid, people might have to change their behaviors.
What memo? That AGW is real, that three centuries of barfing millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere isn't a climate-neutral activity? That memo?
Yes, I think he's got it.
I'd call it a very biased paper that allows its editorial department masquerade as its reporting department. Witness the incredible number of anti-NHS stories that were one-sided, biased, and clearly intended to underwrite a series of columns by various right wing regulars demanding the NHS be demolished, privatized or something between the two.
And yes, the Guardian does the same thing. British newspapers are, by and large, utter crap.