msduncan wrote:Because the science of climate study is an infant.
Don't worry - you aren't getting a full Treatment(tm) here, but I wanted to make sure that if we are approaching this honestly, we separate factual statements from opinions.
Forget for a moment my initial question, which is to wonder about your qualifications for deciding whether or not a field of study is in the infancy stage or if it has developed enough to trust the broad theme of its predominant conclusions. Let's instead consider that climate science either is or is not in its infancy. One or the other must be true, even if we might disagree with which state it is currently in.
One or the other must be true. Regardless of the current state - how will YOU (you specifically, not the generic "you") know the difference? What criteria are you looking for that will tell you that climate science has moved from its infancy into something more substantial?
I would *hope* that your answer isn't simply a number of years or something superficial like that.
msduncan wrote:It was born out of the idea that human capitalists were belching black soot into the sky and killing innocent animals. It took 50 years of temperature data and built a science around it in order to justify politically motivated goals.
Sorry to break in so soon after I promised no Treatment(tm). But just to clarify, you immediately left the realm of what could be considered "factual content", and immediately jumped into editorializing, without any actual basis in fact.
I suspect that it would take a rather substantial effort to go back to the earliest published climate research, and to then guess the motivations of those that began to take a look at. And further - it would take real scientific work to analyze their efforts to determine whether the science was good (whether or not it confirmed or contradicted their initial bias). You don't get to just say that and let it hang out there as a truth because you believe it to be true.
msduncan wrote:It's the classic bait and switch of forming facts and ideas and a discipline around a politically motivated ideology and then sprinkling a few decades on it until it becomes a 'respected' science discipline that shoehorns facts to support a hypothesis that was born from political motivation and ignores or minimizes study of how the earth's climate has had many fluctuations over its history
I have to ask. If this is a classic maneuver of scientists, can you please list the many other scientific disciplines that have sprung into respectability based on political motivations?
I'm somewhat confused at your insistence that climate scientists are ignoring or minimizing the study of how the earth's climate has had many fluctuations over its history. I'm confused because climate science is almost *entirely* focused on the study of how the earth's climate has had many fluctuations over its history. If I wasn't at work, I suspect it would take less than 30 minutes for me to generate a list of *hundreds* of studies by climate scientists focused specifically on the cyclical history of Earth's climate.
My confusion stems from the fact that their understanding of the history of Earth's climates and the historical factors that drive it are so far beyond your understanding of the history of Earth's climates and the historical factors that drive it that I can't even believe you are saying it. To be fair, my understanding of that science is equally infantile.
I fear that your conclusion isn't based on your own exceptional understanding of either current science, or the entire branch of science that studies nothing but what you are claiming they don't understand - but rather you are concluding that they don't understand it because their understanding of it doesn't lead them to the conclusion that you want to hear.
The idea of the solar cycle acting as a force on global climate isn't new. Not only is it well understood, it's reasonably easy to calculate the impact that it has. And that's been done - many, many times. And the answer is "not nearly enough to account for the current rapid warming trend, even when taking into account all of the other factors that we know led to cyclical trends in the past".
Which gets to another point - OF COURSE the Earth's climate is cyclical. OF COURSE the Earth has been much warmer and much colder in the past. I don't understand why you think this is news to *anyone* that works in the field? Of course they know this. They are the ones that figured it out so that you could sort of know it superficially.
msduncan wrote:It's paramount to taking a two day Presidential poll that shows a spike in Romney's numbers and ignoring the last 4 months of spikes to determine incorrectly that Romney is winning the race against the President. You can't take the last two days. You have to take the last 4 months.
But that isn't what is happening. In using the confines of your analogy, researchers are looking at presidential polling information from the last 56 Presidential elections, and noting that while poll numbers have been higher and lower for challengers in past Presidential elections, in this election we are seeing a sudden rise in poll numbers that doesn't look anything like any of the previous elections, and noting that the numbers changed simultaneously with the news that broke of Obama walking into the Capitol building and dropping a deuce on Boehner's seat, with all of Congress watching - and concluding that Romney's rapid rise has more to do with Obama taking a dump in public, and less to do with normal variations in an election cycle.
msduncan wrote:I am pointing out studies that show influences on the climate from sources such as the sun, the earth's oceans, and the rotation of the earth around the sun.
I can see that, and wasn't questioning it. What I'm wondering is why you value those studies more than the other studies that show those same things. I only ask because there are significantly more studies on those influences that contradict your desired outcome than there are studies on those influences that confirm your desired outcome.
You only seem to point out those that confirm your desired outcome. And before you try to insinuate that I do the same thing - hold your horses. As a rule, I don't have a desired outcome. Certainly not with respect to this topic. My conclusion about the current state of the science isn't built on my desire to see one side "win" or one side "lose". My conclusion is based specifically on the accumulation of studies that are conducting "good science", while giving a great deal less value to studies that conduct "bad science".
And I also don't (as a rule) post articles about global climate science. I may read and comment on what others post, but it's been a long time (as far as I know), since I was posting every study that emerged that confirmed what you would call my desired outcome. We know this because that would amount to a full-time job, as they are released several times per day.
I suspect that your thoughts about the current science are more an indication of your current understanding of the science than an accurate reflection on the science itself. Many of your objections are superficial, and are basic facts known to everyone that actually studies this topic for a living. Yet you throw them around like it would be a revelation to a climate scientist that cyclical variations in solar output will yield cyclical variations in global climate. Not only do they already know that - they sit around calculating the actual cycles and how those cycles impact global climate. Which seems more substantial than what you are doing with that knowledge.
Arcanis wrote:He doesn't necessarily believe any of the climate studies, as the field is lacking enough data to be reliable yet, but if he just comes here and says that he will be dismissed out of hand without consideration.
I certainly agree with the first sentence. msduncan clearly doesn't believe any of the climate studies - and I'll even grant you that he doesn't believe them for the stated reason.
Where I will disagree with you is on the consequence. He most certainly wouldn't be dismissed out of hand without consideration - although perhaps it will seem like that. He will be dismissed eventually, when it becomes clear that his opinion that "the field is lacking enough data to be reliable yet" is a function of HIS knowledge of the field, rather than the knowledge of the field itself.
I see this all the time with those that still don't "believe" in macroevolution. A great deal of the problem is that because they don't believe in it, they are completely unaware of just how much evidence there is in favor of it, because they don't spend any time seeking such information out.
Which is why I'm asking the questions that I'm asking. msduncan breathlessly reads news articles about emails that allegedly show malfeasance (but of course none of the follow up articles that demonstrate a lack of malfeasance). He posts nearly every article that has a headline that supports what he interprets to be contradictory evidence. But does he really have any idea how much evidence there is that contradicts his uneducated (and I don't mean that in a bad way - my opinion on this is uneducated as well) opinion?
I'm guessing no. Everyone knows about the IPCC report. A small fraction of the people that know about it have actually read the summary for politicians. A micro fraction of the people that know about it have read the synthesis report. A pico fraction of the people that know about it have read the volume on the physical evidence. Only considering the fourth assessment, that's about 1000 pages of summary information (linking to several hundred studies with many thousands of pages of data). And next year sometime, the fifth assessment will be released, with information learned in the past five years.
I understand that msduncan wants to dismiss all of it on the basis that it is biased "bad science" that is seeking to produce a pre-determined conclusion. But he's never actually seen any of it. And I know that he's never seen any of it, because he is here throwing up basic objections that have been debunked dozens of times. I graciously assume that he doesn't know that because he never took the time to find out. The alternative is that he knows this and still offers these objections disingenuously for other reasons. While there are many who I would label in such a way, msduncan isn't one of them.
I have no doubt that he believes he is right. I'm just trying to figure out where all the conviction comes from when he goes out of his way to not actually know anything about the topic in any way, shape or form.
And that's why he is generally dismissed with prejudice now. It's one thing to be well-versed on a topic and to be able to adequately present a contrary position - only to be dismissed because it's contrary (I went through that all the time in Quinn threads). Every one of his objections is just an opinion of his on the character and motivations of the many tens of thousands of scientists that are studying this field and telling him that he's wrong. He isn't pointing out legitimate flaws in the data. He can't be doing that because he intentionally avoids knowing what any of the data actually is.