Climate Change

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

I submit you do not understand what the word "fact" means. And, BTW, the one who shouts the loudest does not always win.

AGW "science" has many of the same symptoms as the cold fusion foolishness. And it is instructive to see that scientists are not unbiased interpreters of data. So by analogy AGW may have some level of the same biases driven mostly by funding pressures.

If you have a conclusion that is in opposition to the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of the subject-matter experts, do us the courtesy of providing some proof, rather than simply suggesting they're all just nuts or they can't do "science". That's straight from the deniers' hymnbook, or the Gospel according to Big Oil.

What impact will you or any of us make on GW when 8 billion more people come online in the next 50 years with their demands for energy, food, and water.

We'll have no effect whatsoever if we lack the courage and intellectual honesty to acknowledge what's really happening and start taking some action.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you have a conclusion that is in opposition to the conclusion of the overwhelming majority of the subject-matter experts, do us the courtesy of providing some proof, rather than simply suggesting they're all just nuts or they can't do "science". That's straight from the deniers' hymnbook, or the Gospel according to Big Oil.

In your religious fervor you are not reading or you are reading but not understanding what I am saying.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

AGW "science" has many of the same symptoms as the cold fusion foolishness. And it is instructive to see that scientists are not unbiased interpreters of data. So by analogy AGW may have some level of the same biases driven mostly by funding pressures.

If climate scientists really wanted to ensure their funding they would argue that many uncertainties require that much more research be done, rather than suggesting that the science is settled.

[Group9]

So, after all this discussion, how many cruisers here (deniers and non-deniers) are going to get rid of their boats to save the planet?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

And, BTW, the one who shouts the loudest does not always win.

A young farmhand was having trouble getting a new plough-horse to behave. The old farmer handed the young lad an ancient dusty textbook on horses and their training. "Use the book", the old farmer intoned.

The farmhand read through the book, paying particular attention to the sections detailing how to manage and direct a plough-horse. But he still had difficulty getting the big animal to behave.

He asked the old farmer to assist. The farmer came out to the field. He asked the lad "Did you use the book?"

"Yes sir, and I memorized their advice, but the horse is still stubborn". The farmer took the book, looked at the horse, then suddenly walloped the horse between the eyes with the book. The horse jumped back a bit, but when the old farmer grabbed the reins, the horse obediently started forward.

"You see son, the book will help you deal with the horse. But first, you have to get their attention"

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Group9

So, after all this discussion, how many cruisers here (deniers and non-deniers) are going to get rid of their boats to save the planet?

Thoughtful cruisers are among the most energy-conscious and least-wasteful folks on the planet.

Considering the lifespan of the average FG boat, I'd say it's one of the more positive uses of petrochemicals. Getting rid of a sailboat is not in and of itself something that would benefit the planet.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Mike, every week there was another press release from a laboratory confirming the CF results. The piling on was amazing. There were big name laboratories that were seeing CF. I was electrified by news at the time...free energy for the planet. The Wikipedia statements have been significantly modified on this point over the last 3 years. Yes science did win out in the end as it will with GW and AGW and Lake's shouting will have no impact on the AGW endgame.

Additionally the research is not nearly settled on the water vapor and relationship to low and high altitude cloud formation contributions to the energy balance as evidenced by the referenced NASA article above.

Well, we certainly remember things differently Bill. I don't deny there was unsupported enthusiasm around the whole idea, and scientists are just as susceptible to irrational exuberance as anyone, but there was never any great gush of support for Pons and Fleischmann's findings -- not in the scientific literature, and certainly not from the physics/fusion community. There were a couple of early results which seems to show something, and yes, their institutions spit out press releases on it, but this was quickly followed by a wave of non-confirming experiments. I see no parallel to the state of current climate research.

The research is not settled with regard to water vapour. I'm just point out that it is a well-researched, and reasonably well understood aspect. The research will continue, but at this point, the weight of evidence strongly supports the theory of a rapidly-changing climate caused, to some degree, by human civilization. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. That's not to say it could all be wrong -- everything in science is contingent -- but the current consensus in the research community is quite strong.

What isn't disingenuous is to then ask what we do with this information. Is the cost (in the broadest sense of the word) worth the benefits when it comes to mitigating our contributions? Is it better to focus on adaptive techniques and ideas? Does any of our actions really matter anyway? All good and reasonable questions.

I can tell you that part of the reason I'm going cruising is to try and limit my contribution to the problem.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

I would suggest everyone who thinks that we can easily switch to renewables to read David Mackay's "Sustaiable Energy. Without the hot air".

Who said it would be easy? It's not. That's why we need to start acting now, while we still have an abundance of wealth and cheap energy.

[hpeer]

Consider this, that living in a temperate climate itself is a major source of GW gasses as you need heat.

By living in a warm climate, on the water you need neither or AC.

[hpeer]

I would encourage all deniers to take a view of this video

Whats the worst that could happen? by Greg Craven (video by chalksmart.org) on Vimeo

And the associated book by Greg Craven.

What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate: Greg Craven: Amazon.com: Books

Even if you don't change your mode on global warming it is a very good review of risk assessment techniques and how they can be applied to everyday events. Really good for sailors wishing to assess their preparedness for emergencies.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Well, we certainly remember things differently Bill. I don't deny there was unsupported enthusiasm around the whole idea, and scientists are just as susceptible to irrational exuberance as anyone, but there was never any great gush of support for Pons and Fleischmann's findings -- not in the scientific literature, and certainly not from the physics/fusion community. There were a couple of early results which seems to show something, and yes, their institutions spit out press releases on it, but this was quickly followed by a wave of non-confirming experiments. I see no parallel to the state of current climate research.

Mike just to refresh your memory...

"What might be called the "P&F Credibility Coefficient" has gone through wild swings recently. In the past week it (and the stock market) moved in the downward direction. It reached soaring heights of enthusiasm when European laboratories (Hungary, Moscow, Frascati) reported confirmations and other U.S. laboratories (Brigham Young, Brookhaven, Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, and Stanford) made announcements including some staged press conference spectaculars to announce preliminary evidence in support of the effect. There have been plummets into the depths of depression as some of these confirming results were discretely retracted (by Brookhaven, Georgia Tech, and Texas A&M) and as a growing number of other laboratories revealed their inability to confirm the Utah results."

Alternate View Column AV-36

Some piling on in rarified atmosphere here!!

[conachair]

Another cracker from Judith Curry's site on advocacy by scientists..

http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/06/ir...ts/#more-12477

This paper from the royal society fared well with one particular attempt to list 'good things to do'

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFile...4294972962.pdf

Well worth a read.

And the things to do......

steneck’s guidelines for responsible advocacy:

Limit science advocacy to your area(s) of expertise and be clear when you are presenting a personal opinion not based on your formal expertise or professional experience;
Present information clearly and avoid making exaggerated claims;
Be aware of any conflicts of interest – for example, financial interests that you or members of your family have or affiliations with advocacy organizations – and make them clear; 5
Point out the weakness and limitations of your argument, including data that conflict with your recommendations;
Present all relevant scientific data, not just that which supports a particular policy outcome;
Be aware of the impact your advocacy can have on science; and
Make clear when you are speaking as an individual scientist as opposed to acting as a representative of a scientific organization



PS - how many posts on this thread meet any of those guidelines

[Capt Phil]

Krogensailor, your post #362 was one of the most profound and well written I've read in days. Thank you... Phil

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Mike just to refresh your memory...

"What might be called the "P&F Credibility Coefficient" has gone through wild swings recently. In the past week it (and the stock market) moved in the downward direction. It reached soaring heights of enthusiasm when European laboratories (Hungary, Moscow, Frascati) reported confirmations and other U.S. laboratories (Brigham Young, Brookhaven, Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, and Stanford) made announcements including some staged press conference spectaculars to announce preliminary evidence in support of the effect. There have been plummets into the depths of depression as some of these confirming results were discretely retracted (by Brookhaven, Georgia Tech, and Texas A&M) and as a growing number of other laboratories revealed their inability to confirm the Utah results."

No ... that's about how I remember it (minus the hyperbole). As I said, there were some initial apparent confirmations, which were then followed by an avalanche of failed experiments. Institutions spit out press releases, often to the chagrin of the researchers involved. This all took place in the popular press, which is never a good sign for all things science.

Once again, this has nothing to do with how current climate change research is taking place. The overwhelming consunsus in the research community -- in the research literature -- supports the theory of a rapidly changing climate driving, to some degree by human activity. There is no parallel to the insanity of cold fusion.

Where there may be a parallel is in the popular media's portrayal that there is no such consensus. Just like with cold fusion, whose only supporters were found in the popular press, not the scientific literature, so too with the so called debate about climate change.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

No ... that's about how I remember it (minus the hyperbole). As I said, there were some initial apparent confirmations, which were then followed by an avalanche of failed experiments. Institutions spit out press releases, often to the chagrin of the researchers involved. This all took place in the popular press, which is never a good sign for all things science.

Once again, this has nothing to do with how current climate change research is taking place. The overwhelming consunsus in the research community -- in the research literature -- supports the theory of a rapidly changing climate driving, to some degree, by human activity. There is no parallel to the insanity of cold fusion.

Where there may be a parallel is in the popular media's portrayal that there is no such consensus. Just like with cold fusion, whose only supporters were found in the popular press, not the scientific literature, so too with the so called debate about climate change.

My basic point dredging all this up is to point out that you may not want to drink the Kool-Aid in one gulp. Scientists and researchers and funding agencies, big oil, NSF, all have biases because they are operated by humans. I personally still maintain a significant fraction of scepticism because I have some understanding of how humans, data, and models work.