How many times can I ask for credible scepticism?

Question

C'mon Jello. Any of you. Show me CREDIBLE proof backing up your claims.. or am I going to get no response to this one too? Uh huh.

OK.. So.. No? Can't give me any huh? Yeah, I thought so.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm still waiting. Credible means without bias OK?

Answer 1

Answers to Ron C's stuff.

Watts has pictures of temperature sites. He has no data. It would be easy for him to compare data between "good" sites and "bad" sites and show a difference, if he was right. The thing is, people have compared data across those sites, and find there is no difference.

"Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous United States: No Difference Found", Petersen, T.C., Journal of Climate, 16:18.

The match isn't exact, but all of Watts "bad" sites are urban, so the study would show a difference if he was right. Why hasn't he done that analysis?

Schartz's work is refuted in detail here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/

"The conclusion is inescapable, that global temperature cannot be adequately modeled as a linear trend plus AR(1) process."

"Solar amplification" can't possibly be right. How can you amplify decreasing radiation and get warming?

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar
climate forcings and the global mean surface
air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A
doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

News article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

The cosmic ray theory is debunked here, with links:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11651

The ocean currents have a short term effect on temperature and are probably important in year to year variation. But they can't explain the long term trend. This graph shows both things:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

The UN didn't lie, they got better data. By all means read Ron's link, it explains exactly why (basically, it's not exactly easy to get good medical data from Africa). The change was total cases went from 40 million to 33, so I suppose AIDS is not a problem.

A little while ago, Ron seemed like a reasonable skeptic. But lately he has has started to do things like: using ad hominem attacks on Realclimate and the IPCC, saying incredible things like Pielke Sr. is "the world's most respected climatologist" and that global warming theory acceptance is decreasing.

And it seems like he's getting most of his information from blogs.

Answer 2

Unfortunately you're not going to get credible proof - it doesn't exist.

I've asked the same question as yourself on several occasions and have made numerous challenegs within my answers. There has NEVER been a credible case put forward by the skeptics.

That's not to say that there isn't good reason to question some aspects of climate science - there is. I know of several such arguments for which there is as yet, no suitable exlanation. Such issues don't disprove global warming but they do highlight some weaknesses, inconsistencies and possible errors. If the level of debate here were at a higher level and free from distortion and other questionable practices I would introduce these issues into the debate. Sadly, were I to do so, they would be seized upon by certain skpetics and distorted so as to suit their own aggenda.

Having worked as a climatologist since the 80's, I've come across more than my fair share of 'proofs' that global warming doesn't exist. None of them stands up to scrutiny.

Answer 3

What you are lacking is credible proof that humans have significantly influenced the climate. Your "religion" tells you that humans must have somehow harmed the environment. To suggest that humans may have only insignificantly affected the climate would be like suggesting to a ardent Christian that the devil sometimes is a nice guy. You should stop pretending to look for evidence and admit you only accept evidence that indicates humans are a bad destructive force. It is part of the agenda of the alarmists. That is why it is political and not science but your politics blinds everything else IMO.

Answer 4

You crazy kids shouldn't *ask* for critical commentary. Critical thinking is an essential part of the scientific method. If we didn't bombard every theory with honest ground-truthing, we'd all still be getting the bumps on our heads read to determine our potential for criminal acts*

*Which was, by the way, an accepted practice, denial of which was grounds for ridicule, not so very long ago among top scientific minds.

Answer 5

You can ask as often as you want. They can't provide a credible answer. They're good at lying and spreading misinformation though.

What dismays me is that several of the 'skeptics' came to Y!A appearing genuinely open-minded, but have since regressed into spreading the same old misinformation as the closed-minded global warming deniers. It's a sad spectacle. A couple of open-minded 'skeptics' have learned the science and reality of anthropogenic global warming too though.

dpj - I can honestly answer yes. You and J.J. do not even attempt to prove otherwise.

Scientists are telling us that climate change has a high probability of producing catastrophic consequences to our species. Dismissing their conclusions without any proof just because you don't want to hear it is completely irresponsible.

At least Ron C tries to use scientific evidence to prove his point, but when we show that his evidence is wrong, he doesn't admit it.

Surface temperature record here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkTk4Kabe7g268z3VRClMHzty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071102221434AAyQmvK

Solar amplification here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjexIdbnj70ehSvHXFidWwEjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071012155438AAM95Xn

Galactic cosmic rays here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkCY_7Ayj6CgmztQ4MB3.n0jzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071030112550AA7AXSu

Climate indices such as PDO:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvvO3SSe3jdQU6KxL41hKwwjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071031092849AAVfD27

Trevor provides an excellent answer to climate sensitivity here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071120082857AAzOi3X&r=w&show_comments=true&pa=FZB6NWHjDG3N56z6v_2zV2IgXBw_Xa1hpSzbUiM0Ku3piGDIwUV7lU2VUXTJ1w3LFxdtIl8zn3bwdBYvcyE3lg--&paid=add_comment#openions

Then he's got some ridiculous attacks on RealClimate and the UN.

Basically he's thrown together a hodgepodge of old disproven arguments, most of which have no chance of contributing significantly to the current warming. People have shown why this is the case, but he refuses to accept it.

Ron C trying very hard to find scientific data to support his skepticism, but striking out. But after he strikes out he won't go back to the dugout.

Answer 6

Would credible proof change your mind? I'm afraid your mind is already made up.

People here throw "proof" around like pies hoping they'll hit their mark on the others face.

I question the motives behind the proof for global warming.
But just like you, my mind is already made up.

Answer 7

Vick, I and others have posted credible research for skepticism many times. Here are a few points to consider:

* The recent warming is overestimated. Anthony Watts, a broadcast meteorologist, has been leading an effort to photograph and document the quality of weather stations reporting temperatures in the US. He and his team have surveyed about 1/3 of these stations in the last few months. Only 15% of them meet the minimum standards set by the NOAA. 95% of the poor stations have a warm bias. The surface station network outside the US is even lower quality. Up to half of the observed warming appears not to be real but is an artifact of these poor quality stations.
We will know much more when this effort is completed in about two years. The worst station found so far was being overseen by the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona in Tucson. It was located on top of parking lots! To see pictures, go to:
http://surfacestations.org
You can view Watts' presentation to the scientists at UCAR here:
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/UCAR-slides/index.html

* Scientists have known for several years that the surface temperature record was not reliable. Years ago, Roger Pielke suggested using a different metric to measure global warming - ocean heat content. This has been used by scientists on both sides of the debate. (It became more interesting when the oceans began cooling in 2003.) Just recently Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Laboratory published a peer-reviewed paper using a combination of surface temps and ocean heat content to estimate the climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2. Using this method, he calculated the sensitivity to be much less than previously thought indicating that global warming will not be catastrophic.
http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

There are several competing theories regarding the warming:

* One view is that the warming is partially due to solar variation. The direct changes in solar variation are not great. The IPCC estimates direct contribution at 1.3 W/M2. But some scientists have hypothesized that mechanisms in the climate create "solar amplification" meaning there is both a direct and indirect contribution from solar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf
http://www.gsajournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-static&name=i1052-5173-14-3-e4&ct=1

* Another view is that cosmic rays play a big role. This view is championed by Hendrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center and Nir Shaviv.
http://royalsociety.metapress.com/content/3163g817166673g7/
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006cosp...36.1103S

* My favorite view is that the recent warming is mainly a result of internal climate variation due to oceanic oscillations being in the warm phase. This most important of these is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). It was in a warm phase from 1905 to 1945 and global temps went up. It was in a cool phase from 1946 to 1975 and temps went down. It was in a warm phase from 1976 to 2006 and temps went up. The PDO just changed to the cool phase so I expect cooler temperatures in the years ahead. Other oceanic oscillations include the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The greatest impact happens when all three are in a warm phase at the same time, as in 1998 and 2006. I provide the Wikipedia link only so you can verify the years it was in the warm phase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030288.shtml

Vick, why not ask for credible proof that UN scientists have ever exaggerated research in order to increase funding for a pet project? I can provide that too. The UN just admitted it did it with AIDS.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978.html

Edit - Note to Bob, the Peterson study was refuted by Pielke earlier. That was what prompted Watts to do his study. You are wrong about good data not making a difference. McIntyre did a reconstruction using only the good sites in the US and found the warmest year to be 1934, then 1921, then 1998, then 2006.

Schwartz's paper has been challenged by a number of people but the paper is not refuted. The most that can be said now is that the paper is still getting "seasoned." Schwartz himself has said he is able to defend his paper against all criticisms so far and I await his response. But you have to admit, Bob, that even RealClimate considers him a "highly respected researcher." So this paper meets the requirement vick set out.

Bob, my criticism of RealClimate was not an ad hom attack. I criticized them for not being honest about the Hockey Stick controversy. I was also critical of RealClimate readers who read the blog to find out what they are supposed to think. If RealClimate was not honest about the Hockey Stick controversy where the facts are easily checked, why should you believe them about science which you cannot verify?

An important point here is that when Watts completes his study, if the temp record drops in the rest of the world the way it did in the US - then Schwartz's estimate of climate sensitivity will be seen as too high, not too low.

The Cosmic Ray theory is also not debunked. I have not had a chance to follow this debate as closely as I would like but I know people who are following it and believe it has great merit. The view is championed by Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center, not some researcher who took money from Big Oil. This meets vick's test.

Regarding solar variation, I believe you have been reading RealClimate again.

Regarding the UN's alarmism, please do read the link I provided. Here's some quotes:
* Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS.

* "There was a tendency toward alarmism, and that fit perhaps a certain fundraising agenda," said Helen Epstein

* UNAIDS has drawn criticism in recent years from Epstein and others who have accused it of being politicized and not scientifically rigorous.

* James Chin, a former World Health Organization AIDS expert who has long been critical of UNAIDS, said that even these revisions may not go far enough. He estimated the number of cases worldwide at 25 million.

The rate of AIDS infections has been slowing for ten years, but last year, the leader of UNAIDS said "the pandemic and its toll are outstripping the worst predictions."

AIDS is bad. I'm not saying it is not. But I am saying this type of alarmism is wrong. The UN will have to admit it did the same with global warming one of these days. The most recent statement by the UN flies in the face of all of the scientific evidence to the contrary.

Answer 8

We can but when we do you say it is a conservative site. You guys always give liberal sites and that is ok to do for you guys but when we give conservative sites it is not ok.

Answer 9

Can you honestly tell me that you don't think someone can't find information that debunks the manmade global warming science? What makes the scientists who say global warming is going to kill everyone in, what is it now, 20 years, 50 years, more believable than the scientists who deny manmade global warming?
There are people who have been blinded by money grabbing, rhetoric spewing people looking to capitalize on peoples fears, including global warming.

Answer 10

Try the internet.