Study: Northeast winters warming fast

[Stash]

Science is evidence driven and the evidence is very strong and available in many places. One reasonable place to start is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming.

Doug

Without intending to directly contradict... Wikipedia is frequently referenced in posts in this and other threads. It should be noted that most educational institutions do not accept the use of references from Wikipedia for reasons identified directly in the web site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia. Information on the site can be updated by anyone. There are no special qualifications required. While I'm not stating that the information in this source is valid or invalid the source(s) should be taken into account when reading this or anything else on the web.

 

[DougPaul]

Without intending to directly contradict... Wikipedia is frequently referenced in posts in this and other threads. It should be noted that most educational institutions do not accept the use of references from Wikipedia for reasons identified directly in the web site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia. Information on the site can be updated by anyone. There are no special qualifications required. While I'm not stating that the information in this source is valid or invalid the source(s) should be taken into account when reading this or anything else on the web.

True, but the article contains many references that do meet academic standards--you can read them if you prefer.

This is hardly a formal academic forum.


You don't have to look very hard for other options:
eg the US EPA climate change science pages: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.html

Doug

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Just what is a climate expert? More specifically, what training, degrees, certifications, etc. qualify someone as a climate expert?

Who pays the salaries of these climate experts? In other words, what type of organizations would employ a climate expert?

Edit: Does a climate expert spend the majority of their time (or 100% of their time) researching the causes and effects of global warming? If not, what else would they do?

Assuming that the 97% statistic above is true (without yet having an answer to the first set of questions) I'd guess that a climate expert must at least have a master's degree, which generally means about 6 years of college. What would be the job prospects for someone that trained as a climate expert, worked for several years in the field, only to come up with the conclusion that GW doesn't exist, or at least that it isn't human-caused? Please don't say that because the "science is settled", that this isn't possible. Just look at it as a hypothetical question.

Most climate scientists have Ph.D.'s in various physical sciences, work in academia (ex. colleges and universities) or government (ex. NASA, NOAA, etc.), and spend most of their time teaching or doing research (usually a combination of both in academia). The 97% number for climate scientists who believe that humans are likely responsible for most of GW over the past century or so probably comes from the 1200+ number of climate scientists who reached a consensus on IPCC's 4th climate assessment published in 2007 (three volumes, with 3000+ pages, which conclude that there is now a 95% probability that humans are responsible for GW [i.e. AGW]). However, the 3% who are AGW skeptics are far more vociferous, more effective at getting their views equal time in the mainstream media, and are much better funded by the fossil fuel industry through intermediaries, such as the Heartland Institute, than are the other 97% of climate scientists. So, although AGW skeptics are not publishing much in peer-reviewed journals, they are authoring lots of books and have a much greater presence in the blogosphere than do AGW believers.

One of the climate blogs that I have really liked since late 2004 for the latest information on climate change, Realclimate.org, was founded by academic and government climate scientists that I know personally from their presentations at professional society meetings or through their published papers (I realize that you will say I am biased). Unfortunately, this blog has been under heavy attack the past few months, and I have not been able get it to launch much recently. See link below for the founders of the site, if you wish to check their credentials as climate scientists, as their names no longer seem to be listed on the site itself. Also, the second link takes you to an excerpt from a book about the political part of climate change science.

http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news94097

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17926941

 

[Barbarossa]

The 97% number for climate scientists who believe that humans are likely responsible for most of GW over the past century or so probably comes from the 1200+ number of climate scientists who reached a concensus on IPCC's 4th climate assessment published in 2007 (three volumes, with 3000+ pages, which conclude that there is now a 95% probability that humans are responsible for GW [i.e. AGW]). However, the 3% who are AGW skeptics are far more vociferous, more effective at getting their views equal time in the mainstream media, and are much better funded by the fossil fuel industry through intermediaries, such as the Heartland Institute, than are the other 97% of climate scientists. So, although AGW skeptics are not publishing much in peer-reviewed journals, they are authoring lots of books and have a much greater presence in the blogosphere than do AGW believers.

http://idw-online.de/pages/de/news94097

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17926941

The federal government outspends the petroleum industry on climate studies by nearly 1000 - 1. PDF warning

Much media attention has relentlessly focused on the influence of “Big Oil”—but the
numbers don’t add up. Exxon Mobil is still vilified28

for giving around 23 million dollars,
spread over roughly ten years, to skeptics of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It amounts to
about $2 million a year, compared to the US government input of well over $2 billion a year.
The entire total funds supplied from Exxon amounts to less than one five-thousandth of the
value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
Apparently Exxon was heavily “distorting the debate” with a mere 0.8% of what the US
government spent on the climate industry each year at the time. (If so, it’s just another
devastating admission of how effective government funding really is.)

Real Climate

The other side of the coin

Perhaps the skeptics have a greater presence in the blogosphere because they aren't mystified by those new fangled interwebs.

 

[Barbarossa]

probably comes from the 1200+ number of climate scientists who reached a concensus on IPCC's 4th climate assessment published in 2007

Please stop yammering about consenus. The only science where the word is not out of place is political science.

A state legislature in Ohio once reached the consensus that pi = 22/7. They passed a law, but were still wrong.

A governing body can not vote to outlaw gravity. Gravity is.

 

[Puck]

The federal government outspends the petroleum industry on climate studies by nearly 1000 - 1. PDF warning

This article comes up very very short. There are no sources or citations.

 

[dr_wu002]

Gravity is.

You absolutely picked the wrong branch of physics to make your point, my friend. The "consensus" on gravity sucks. I mean, the fundamental particle of gravity, the graviton is only postulated at this point!! Why don't evolution deniers and global warning skeptics also take on the gravity / quantum mechanics debate. Certainly more fuzziness there than in evolution or global warming. I don't understand why there's no public debate here? The public at large has all sorts of skeptical opinions about more obvious sciences in my opinion. Not that I agree with everything global warming or the politics behind "solving" the problem by any means but still I feel like there's a disconnect here.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Barbarossa]

This article comes up very very short. There are no sources or citations.

Try reading the PDF. The last 3 pages is nothing but reference.

This
is the specific reference for the quote.

The point of my quoting the article was refuting the non-sense

AGW skeptics are far more vociferous, more effective at getting their views equal time in the mainstream media, and are much better funded by the fossil fuel industry through intermediaries

.

 

[Barbarossa]

You absolutely picked the wrong branch of physics to make your point, my friend. The "consensus" on gravity sucks. ...I feel like there's a disconnect here.

-Dr. Wu

32 feet per second per second, yes?

 

[dr_wu002]

32 feet per second per second, yes?

I deal almost exclusively in "drinks per hour" -- let me look it up on my conversion chart.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Nutsosa]

Try reading the PDF. The last 3 pages is nothing but reference.

The article seems to rely pretty heavily on references to Stephen McIntyre, of climateaudit.org. As a former employee of gas/oil exploration companies (CGX Resources, see page 13 of this PDF: http://cgxenergy.ca/investors/CGX_AR03_part2.pdf), I don't consider him an objective party.

There are multiple issues with the "references" in that paper. I'm not going to waste my time going through it point-by-point. If one chooses to believe that article, it's willful ignorance, and nothing I type is going to make a difference.

Biased references don't provide much credibility to a publication. It looks like the author got a little trigger-happy with Endnote, and started citing the same rubbish over and over.

 

[Barbarossa]

There are multiple issues with the "references" in that paper. I'm not going to waste my time going through it point-by-point. If one chooses to believe that article, it's willful ignorance, and nothing I type is going to make a difference.

Well said. So that means that $79 billion from the federal government doesn't outweigh $23 million from ExxonMobil? You read my post, didn't you?

The article seems to rely pretty heavily on references to Stephen McIntyre, of climateaudit.org. As a former employee of gas/oil exploration companies (CGX Resources, see page 13 of this PDF: http://cgxenergy.ca/investors/CGX_AR03_part2.pdf), I don't consider him an objective party.

He doesn't always brush his teeth and he kicks puppies, too.

Did the article have any grammatical errors we should know about?

 

[Nutsosa]

Well said. So that means that $79 billion from the federal government doesn't outweigh $23 million from ExxonMobil? You read my post, didn't you?

I did read your post. Did you take a look at the references you spoke so highly of?

He doesn't always brush his teeth and he kicks puppies, too.

Did the article have any grammatical errors we should know about?

Wow. The tinfoil hat is a little too tight tonight, eh?

EDIT: I don't claim the guy is evil, so, the puppy-kicking comment is a pretty silly distraction. Also, I'm not nit-picking, so the "grammatical errors" comment is an equally lame attempt at distraction from the topic. I just think the references, as a whole, are weak.

 

[Paradox]

I did read your post. Did you take a look at the references you spoke so highly of?



Wow. The tinfoil hat is a little too tight tonight, eh?

Oh ya! Anyone who can parallel NSF funding with oil industry funding is,...well,... you got it right.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Please stop yammering about consenus. The only science where the word is not out of place is political science.

Well, I tend to agree with you on the misuse of this word, at least. Most of the research of glaciologists who are concerned about collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets due to AGW was left out of the IPCC 2007 climate assessment for lack of enough "consensus."

I finally got through the long-winded article by Robert Ferguson, and found that I agree with him on one point, and that is we both wish that there were more government funds available for study of natural climate change, as that is my own research area, as opposed to AGW. However, I tend to agree with Nutsosa that the article is not to be taken too seriously, as the only peer-reviewed climate science reference (GRL, 2005) is that of McIntyre and McKitrick in their challenge of the Mann, Bradley, and Hughes "hockey stick" paper (1998); however, this challenge has been dismissed by most climate scientists (see one of many discussion threads on Realclimate.org).

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

Also, here is some background on Robert Ferguson, the author of the paper and founder and president of the Science Public Policy Institute:

"Robert Ferguson is the President of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SIPP), an organization that promotes the views of global warming skeptics and was founded in mid-2007.

Ferguson is a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank.

He has an undergraduate degree in history from Brigham Young University, and a master's degree in legislative affairs from George Washington University."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

 

[Barbarossa]

I don't claim the guy is evil, so, the puppy-kicking comment is a pretty silly distraction.

No, referring to Stephen McIntyre and ClimateAudit are a silly distraction.

Also, I'm not nit-picking

Yes, you absolutely are.

so the "grammatical errors" comment is an equally lame attempt at distraction from the topic.

It is an exaggeration intended to highlight your silly distraction.

I just think the references, as a whole, are weak.

Oh looky, a genuine statement of fact. Let's look at a couple of these 'weak' references.

1 Climate Change Science Program, Annual Report to Congress: Our Changing Planet, see table page 4.
http://downloads.climatescience.gov/ocp/ocp2009/ocpfy2009-8.pdf.

2 Analytical Perspectives Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2010. see page 31, Table 5-2.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/spec.pdf.

3 1993-2005 GAO, Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should be Clearer and More Complete
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05461.pdf Appendix II page 34.

4 OMB, Fiscal Year 2008. Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures, Table 8 and Table 7.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy08_climate_change.pdf.

5 Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Change Programs in the FY 2009 Budget, p 1. AAAS.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch15.pdf.

Billions in the Name of “Climate”
In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion1 2 for climate research—and another $36 billion3 4 5
for development of climate-related technologies. These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation.

US Climate Change Science Program, Office of Management & Budget, Government Accounting Office and AAAS. These are the sources for the $79B figure.
Four '.govs' and the publisher of 'Science' magazine. I agree with you, weak references. Never trust the fed'ral gubmint.

I'm not going to waste my time going through it point-by-point.

I ran this though my Babel Fish BS translator and got "there other points that don't back my claim".
Maybe my translator is getting interference from the tinfoil.

Anyone who can parallel NSF funding with oil industry funding is,...well,...

...an accountant? $1 = $1. Ever balanced a checkbook?

On the one hand we have $79 billion, sketchy as the source information may be. (GAO, OMB, AAAS).
On the other, we have $23 million. Which buys more influence? What do the squirrels tell you?

I finally got through the long-winded article by Robert Ferguson, and found that I agree with him on one point

Robert Ferguson is the President of the Science and Public Policy Institute; Joanne Nova wrote the article. Disengage filters?

 

[Barbarossa]

This whole sub-thread is about money.

Dr.D said

However, the 3% who are AGW skeptics are far more vociferous, more effective at getting their views equal time in the mainstream media, and are much better funded by the fossil fuel industry through intermediaries, such as the Heartland Institute, than are the other 97% of climate scientists.

I say horse-puckey. The federal government has spent billions on pro-AGW research over the past two decades, far more money that the fossil fuel industry and any think tanks it may be funding have spent.

Some might not trust the numbers from the Gov't Accouting Office and the Office of Management & Budget. My figure is $79 billion. What is yours?

 

[Puck]

Try reading the PDF. The last 3 pages is nothing but reference.

This
is the specific reference for the quote.

The point of my quoting the article was refuting the non-sense .

I did not make it to the end of the PDF. The standard is to either have in text citations or footnotes. Anything else is slopppy and suspect.

 

[Paradox]

...an accountant? $1 = $1. Ever balanced a checkbook?

On the one hand we have $79 billion, sketchy as the source information may be. (GAO, OMB, AAAS).
On the other, we have $23 million. Which buys more influence? What do the squirrels tell you?

I have to claim ignorance here, how would I check up on the figure you list as being given to researchers who promote human indiced climate change? I would like to make sure that, for instance, a few million spent by the navy to study rime ice formation was not included in the 79 billion dollar figure, just because rime ice has different characteristics today than it did 30 years ago.

I've got a sneaky suspicion that the GAO is telling the truth, but the assertion that the 79 billion was to promote a human induced climate change agenda is not the truth. How did you check on your figures and what did you do to back up your assertion. How do I know your telling the truth about this 79 billion figure.

What do the squirrels tell you?

Here lies the crux of the whole problem: squirrels don't talk. Take the tin foil off them too, and get back to us.

 

[Puck]

This whole sub-thread is about money.

Dr.D said

I say horse-puckey. The federal government has spent billions on pro-AGW research over the past two decades, far more money that the fossil fuel industry and any think tanks it may be funding have spent.

Some might not trust the numbers from the Gov't Accouting Office and the Office of Management & Budget. My figure is $79 billion. What is yours?

The difference is spending for research vs spending for a PR campaign.
Follow this link http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch15.pdf provided by SPPI. (the demons are slain by thier own weapons)