I think the debate here goes right to the central issue about Climate change: How do you make science and politics play well together?
In science, concensus isn't that important. Sure, people will be skeptical if you champion some way out there theory, but entertaining strange possibilities is seen as a good thing.
Climate scientists, however, suddenly found themselves in a position where they had to get into politics with the message they got out of their data. Politics, however, is another beast entirely. You have to deal with absolute truths, otherwise people won't give a damn about what you're saying.
How do you make an informed decision based on science? Since it doesn't offer absolute truths, there has to be some element of risk analysis behind your reasoning. But the problem isn't only that no one scientist is absolutely sure about his answer, it's that people disagree on how sure you can be. How do you perform risk analysis when you don't know the risk?
This is where consensus becomes important in science. You can't have a concensus about what's true and what's false, but maybe you can have a consensus about what the risk is. That is what the IPCC is all about.
Now, people won't just trust a consensus; they want to know what lies behind. That's why public access journals are so important.
That's my thinking on the subject, anyway. I, however, am no expert.
>> Winstonfield_Pennypacker Perhaps the first time I've ever heard a AGW advocate admit that C02 isn't the only factor influencing temperature! This is a red letter day.
I have never heard anyone say that CO2 is the only factor. What people are saying is that CO2 is the main factor in driving the most recent climate change.
I guess in all the time that he spent in all those journals he just MISSED the truckloads of reports that solar activity has radically decreased over the past several years, and that 2009 alone has had the lowest amount of solar activity in the past 100 years. Yet he says "solar activity has been more or less constant for 30 years".
Solar activity periodically varies over an 11 year cycle, and we are currently at the minimum of this cycle. Besides this periodic variation, solar activity has been more or less constant.
And then he goes on and says "C02 levels have been constant for the past thousand years".
Obviously, he means that CO2 levels have been constant for the past thousand years until the industrial revolution. One of the main reasons for believing in anthropogenic climate change is the good correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.
AGW proponents blame a global temperature increase of ONE degree in 100 years on human C02. Then they ignore a global temperature decreases of one degree in ONE year.
Climatologists deal with long-term trends and global means. Differences in temperature between one year and the next is expected and difficult to explain, but models for long-term and large-scale means have turned out to be quite good. They only work, however, when CO2 is taken into account.
Here are the lyrics in English, from the video description:
Le commun des mortels (The common of mortals, the status quo, the average man)
In my opinion One must quest as far As those banished From a city without children
From above the mountains To the depths of prison camps I follow the common of mortals
In the square Of a cathedral in flames I make my bed And await the voice of God
From above all knowledge To the loss of mind I am the common of mortals
Always in vain The quest For truth Always in vain The quest For truth Oh, stop This Pirouette
In my opinion One must quest as far From above the mountains To the depths of prison camps From above all knowledge To the loss of mind From above the sugar-coated Until I am happy I follow the common of mortals
Americans actually discussing the possibility of a national health care system seriously? I feel like I'm watching a fairytale. I tell you, watching the American health care debate is really excruciating.
Meanwhile, back in Norway: Everyone's covered and service is good. The costs are rising, but we're certainly not hitting 16% of GDP anytime soon.
Instructables has connections to instructions on how to
Shine on you crazy Russian diamond
Urban myths about climate change
How do you make science and politics play well together?
In science, concensus isn't that important. Sure, people will be skeptical if you champion some way out there theory, but entertaining strange possibilities is seen as a good thing.
Climate scientists, however, suddenly found themselves in a position where they had to get into politics with the message they got out of their data. Politics, however, is another beast entirely. You have to deal with absolute truths, otherwise people won't give a damn about what you're saying.
How do you make an informed decision based on science? Since it doesn't offer absolute truths, there has to be some element of risk analysis behind your reasoning. But the problem isn't only that no one scientist is absolutely sure about his answer, it's that people disagree on how sure you can be. How do you perform risk analysis when you don't know the risk?
This is where consensus becomes important in science. You can't have a concensus about what's true and what's false, but maybe you can have a consensus about what the risk is. That is what the IPCC is all about.
Now, people won't just trust a consensus; they want to know what lies behind. That's why public access journals are so important.
That's my thinking on the subject, anyway. I, however, am no expert.
Urban myths about climate change
Perhaps the first time I've ever heard a AGW advocate admit that C02 isn't the only factor influencing temperature! This is a red letter day.
I have never heard anyone say that CO2 is the only factor. What people are saying is that CO2 is the main factor in driving the most recent climate change.
I guess in all the time that he spent in all those journals he just MISSED the truckloads of reports that solar activity has radically decreased over the past several years, and that 2009 alone has had the lowest amount of solar activity in the past 100 years. Yet he says "solar activity has been more or less constant for 30 years".
Solar activity periodically varies over an 11 year cycle, and we are currently at the minimum of this cycle. Besides this periodic variation, solar activity has been more or less constant.
And then he goes on and says "C02 levels have been constant for the past thousand years".
Obviously, he means that CO2 levels have been constant for the past thousand years until the industrial revolution. One of the main reasons for believing in anthropogenic climate change is the good correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.
AGW proponents blame a global temperature increase of ONE degree in 100 years on human C02. Then they ignore a global temperature decreases of one degree in ONE year.
Climatologists deal with long-term trends and global means. Differences in temperature between one year and the next is expected and difficult to explain, but models for long-term and large-scale means have turned out to be quite good. They only work, however, when CO2 is taken into account.
TYT: Sarah Palin is still stupid
Hubblecast 31: Galactic merger yields sparkling dividends
Pomplamoose - Le Commun de Mortels
September - Earth Wind & Fire cover
Kitchen Fork - Jack Conte VideoSong
Bill Moyers - Single Payer Suppressed by Health Industry
Meanwhile, back in Norway: Everyone's covered and service is good. The costs are rising, but we're certainly not hitting 16% of GDP anytime soon.
Staples Center Collapse Brings Early End To Clippers Game
Your point being...?
My life according to STEELY DAN (Blog Entry by Ornthoron)
Are you a male or female? No god's a man
Describe yourself: Raconteur, Troubadour
How do you feel? So Sincere
Describe where you currently live: The House, the Street, the room
If you could go anywhere, where would you go?: Funny Ways
Your favorite form of transportation: Just the Same
Your best friend is: Mister Class and Quality?
You and your best friends are: The Boys in the Band
What's the weather like? The Moon is Down
Favorite time of day: Edge of Twilight
If your life was a TV show, what would it be called?: On Reflection
What is life to you: Aspirations
Your current relationship: Nothing at all
Your fear: The Face
What is the best advice you have to give? Plain Truth
Thought for the Day: Isn't it Quiet and Cold?
How I would like to die: Playing the Game
My soul's present condition: Time to Kill
My motto: Think of Me With Kindness