Global Warming minded people, what effect does this article have on your opinion?

Question

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/numerical_models_integrated_ci.html

I'm sorry that many responses are proving that many people in this world are incapable of thinking for themselves. For that matter many seem to be incapable of logical deduction. This scares me in that it is this group that seems to be responsible for political policy.

NOT A SCIENTIST?

May I quote directly from his column:
". I am not a climatologist or meteorologist but I have studied fluid mechanics and gasdynamics and have a general understanding of computer models used in process engineering. Such models are used to analyze industrial processes with which I am familiar."

Interesting the American and international scientific body is composed of many "one man" people applying the scientific method.

Interesting thing is plenty of scientists disagree with the concept.

Answer 1

This answer is in response to this question, your similar question and your e-mail.

There are valid reasons for questioning global warming and climate change. It's not an exact science, there are gaps in our knowledge, we don't necessarily understand all the complex interactions, predictions are based on models which by definition include an element of uncertainty, there have been mistakes and erroneous assumptions made in the past - there almost certainly will be in the future.

However, both the articles adopt an all too common approach used by global warming sceptics - they pick at one or two pieces and use this as the basis for refuting the much bigger picture.

Piecing together the causes and effects of global warming is similar to putting together a jigsaw puzzle. We're at a point now where many peices are in place but there's still many to go. We can see what the overall picture is but some of the detail is missing, more and more peices are being fitted into place and the picture is becoming clearer, some pieces are in the wrong place and in time we'll realise this and correct the errors, there may be a few stray pieces that have crept in from another jigsaw and are confusing the issue as we try to fit them somewhere they don't belong, there's probably some peices missing that may never be found.

What many global warming sceptics tend to do, and what's been done in the two articles, is to point to pieces that haven't yet been fitted into the jigsaw or to select the one or two pieces that are in the wrong place. This doesn't change the picture at all.

Some of the statements made in the articles are known to be false and are rejected by the scientists. In effect they're trying to sneak pieces from some other jigsaw into the puzzle but the jigsaw makers can see them and keep throwing the errant pieces out.

The two articles don't actually present any evidence themselves, they're merely seeking to discredit the evidence that's already there - this is a very weak form of defence. We see similar things all the time in courts of law, the defendant is unable to prove his or her innocence, has no alibis, has nothing to back up his claims of innocence so instead sets about trying to discredit the case from the prosecution. A strong argument in the case against global warming must be one that includes evidence that refutes current claims but such evidence isn't forthcoming.

Neither of the articles is actually denying global warming and my opinion, after having read them, remains unchanged.

Answer 2

The premise of the apocalypse coming is based on these computer models showing an increase in temperatures. Anybody who has an open mind and studies the subject, will come to the conclusion that the models are flawed.

I read one study that shows that if you input the data from 150 years ago, it would show that we should have had an increase in temperatures of three degrees Celsius, but in reality we only had had 0.6 degrees. This is proof that the models are biased.

People like to calls us skeptics, as if that is a bad thing. Being skeptical and critical is what has propelled mankind forward. I take it as a complement.

Answer 3

What has happened is that the global warming alarmists have had a head start. They go off and develop their theories and tweak their results and come up with seemingly sound science claiming CO2 is wrecking the climate. Until recently there was no real reason to scrutinize them. They're in their own little corner and few cared.

Suddenly they've convinced the left that the sky is falling. This has woken up scientists who are skeptical and are picking apart the research at a vigorous pace. The statisticians are laughing the hardest. They know you can't draw these kinds of conclusions with small samples and INFERRED data.

The whole argument is falling apart but the global warming crowd is not a rational bunch.

Sit back and watch. We'll laugh for generations at them.

Answer 4

I would tend to be more influenced if I didn't know already that this ill-named "American Thinker' mag is a radical neocon propagancda sheet that routinely presents distorted views of every issue from ethics to economics to science.

This article has nothing useful to say about Global Climate change, which is hardly surprising since the author is completely ignorant of the issue. But, what the heck! at least until the neocons get complete control, we still have freedom of the press, so he can write whatever he wants.

Answer 5

Wow, thank god I read this article! Now that this author has convinced me that the mathmatical data connecting the presence of human's can't be relied on, I can completely ignore what's going on with regards to the changing climate!
I now see that the only reason that global warming is being paid attention to at all is because it will benefit the scientists who are focusing on it.
I used to think that people like the author of this article might have some personal reasons for their arguments, but that can't POSSIBLY be the case.
The author writes:

"In my view, we should adopt the private sector's practice of placing extremely limited reliance on numerical models for major investment decisions in the absence of confirming test data, that is, climate data which can be easily collected just by waiting."

This is genious! Maybe we can sit back and continue to watch the glaciers dissapear instead of proactively trying to figure things out! Maybe in 20 years we can finally say with certainty "the actions of humans has had a significant impact on the global climate" and then rub our chins and say "gee, I wish we'd done something about it while we still had the ability to do so. Sucks to be our kids!"

You have opened my eyes, thank you and god bless!!!

Answer 6

Very little. It's just words, from someone with little credentials in the field.

This is science. The data is what is important. And the data clearly shows man is mostly responsible for the present warming.

A very short version here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

The best data and analysis currently available here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Instead of believing mere words from one engineer with little training, I'll believe the data and the vast majority of climatologists instead.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 7

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how all the coassts weren't underwater back in the year 1000 when the vikings settled greenland. It was so warm that hardly any ice was around.

Answer 8

Well,sad thing (to me) is that the web site is called "American Thinker"... that says a lot !

One man who is not even a scientists wants to think instead of the american scientific body !!!

Answer 9

Does the knowledge that the global warming (as it has been presented to us) hype is a bunch of cr@p count as being 'global warming minded"?