President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist

[Bud Plug]

So are you suggesting that my degree in Engineering makes me fully qualified to judge fully the scientific merit of climate change suppositions? If you think yes, then my word as a scientist is that AGW is a better theory than any other ones out there. If not, why would a guy who studied quantum mechanics in the 60's have any relevance to the discussion?

Simply put, if you don't have the time or ability to fully research the issue, it makes sense to listen to the people who actually spend their lives studying it and a clear majority of scientists who actually study the material agree that human CO2 has had a significant impact on climate.

Your education in engineering does not make you an expert in analyzing climate change any more than it disqualifies you from doing so. Engineering is a field of applied science. I'm sure you have an excellent grasp of many scientific concepts applicable to engineering. I'm also sure that gives you a better platform to understand the discussion, in so far as it is carried on in the jargon of science, than most.

As I understand it, the study of climate change is also an application of a number of scientific fields of study. I'm also sure that someone will tell me that my list is incomplete, but it would seem to require the application of expertise in the disciplines of physics/astrophysics, geology, biology, and chemistry (to name just a few). I'm reasonably sure that a world class physicist is qualified to criticize the application of physics principles to climate change analysis. Likewise, the opinion of a world class geologist, etc. There is no higher scientific authority derived from the posture "But I apply my knowledge to the study of climate change exclusively!". Working within a team of scientists focussed on a single issue may give you greater insight as to the integration of scientific explanations for what is observed, but if you've made a mistake in your science, you've made a mistake, simple as that.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to get a post graduate degree in one or more of these fields just to verify the opinions coming out of various scientific camps. However, I've invariably found that if someone who is highly intelligent and understands their field well enough is also motivated enough, it's always possible for them to explain their position in a way that any intelligent person can understand. When that happens, often what gets revealed are basic logical errors, buried miles underneath technical jargon, like detritus beneath an advancing glacier.

Ball's presentation at least meets the standards of clarity I'm prepared to spend my time considering. His logical errors, if they're present, are not apparent to me. Point me to someone of equal clarity who can point them out.

 

[Bud Plug]

Here's a very good post that dissects some of Ball's claims.
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/12/tim-ball-fails-carbon-cycle-101-at-wuwt.html

Have a read.

Ball's science is very suspect, as he is.

I hope there are better articles than the one you linked. As a piece of writing, it's simply terrible, nearly unreadable.

As an argument, it loses me when it obviously overstates Ball's position (Ball claims no CO2 is produced by human activity, Ball claims grass can't burn?). This is a technique of obfuscation, not clarification. Classic straw man and diversionary argument tactics.

Ball relies on specific data. If that data is wrong, simply tell me why.

Ball makes the (in my view, unnecessary) argument that the data relied upon by others has been purposefully manipulated. I'm less interested in this. If Ball's data is right (regardless of why others have tried to rely on other data), the only question that remains is whether his analysis stemming from that data is also right.

The article you referenced just doesn't advance the resolution of either question.

 

[basketcase]

Your education in engineering does not make you an expert in analyzing climate change any more than it disqualifies you from doing so.....

Yet makes me no more expert than any other person with a background in science. If a scientist who studies climate for a living wants to argue with me the properties of various materials in manufacturing applications then I'd make him a laughing stock. Same goes the other way round. I'm sure that with years of study, we may be able to speak knowledgeably in the others field but that would take a lot of hard work and is not likely to happen. Maybe I could become a Nobel winner for the study of climate change but that would take a heck of a lot of work in a brand new field.

My knowledge of quantum physics is severely limited (compared to anyone who actually studies it) but I know that it has nothing to do with the macroscopic impact on thermodynamics of the earth and atmosphere or effects of solar activity. Would you take a Nobel Quantum Physicist word as gospel if he tells you that vaccines cause autism?

Science is a very wide method of study and expertise in one area means little about knowledge of others.

Ball's presentation at least meets the standards of clarity I'm prepared to spend my time considering. His logical errors, if they're present, are not apparent to me. Point me to someone of equal clarity that can point them out.

Con men can be very clear as well and can obscure logical or factual flaws.

I agree that a good teacher should be able to simplify complex ideas but that isn't true for good scientists. They are paid to be extremely detailed and specific.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Yet makes me no more expert than any other person with a background in science. If a scientist who studies climate for a living wants to argue with me the properties of various materials in manufacturing applications then I'd make him a laughing stock. Same goes the other way round. I'm sure that with years of study, we may be able to speak knowledgeably in the others field but that would take a lot of hard work and is not likely to happen. Maybe I could become a Nobel winner for the study of climate change but that would take a heck of a lot of work in a brand new field.

My knowledge of quantum physics is severely limited (compared to anyone who actually studies it) but I know that it has nothing to do with the macroscopic impact on thermodynamics of the earth and atmosphere or effects of solar activity. Would you take a Nobel Quantum Physicist word as gospel if he tells you that vaccines cause autism?

Science is a very wide method of study and expertise in one area means little about knowledge of others.


Con men can be very clear as well and can obscure logical or factual flaws.

I agree that a good teacher should be able to simplify complex ideas but that isn't true for good scientists. They are paid to be extremely detailed and specific.

All good points!!!

 

[bishop]

The scientific method requires experimentation as part of validating the confidence of the theory. There are no experiments possible, we can not rewind time and try out different experiments and observe the resulting change, we do not have multiple earths to use as controls. Climate science goes from hypothesis straight to accepted truth without the meat in the middle. Climate science is not science, climate scientists are not scientists.

 

[GPIDEAL]

The scientific method requires experimentation as part of validating the confidence of the theory. There are no experiments possible, we can not rewind time and try out different experiments and observe the resulting change, we do not have multiple earths to use as controls. Climate science goes from hypothesis straight to accepted truth without the meat in the middle. Climate science is not science, climate scientists are not scientists.

An untested theory doesn't mean that it's wrong.

They couldn't test Einstein's theory until later, but he was right.

However, they can prove or duplicate the greenhouse effect, albeit on a much smaller scale.

 

[bishop]

Hypotheses are a dime a dozen, 99.9999% of them are wrong when tested against experimentation and predictions, why is climate science given such generous terms such that it is considered a science without actually doing science?

At the time, no one thought general relativity was anything more than fantasy until years later when eddington made his mercury orbit observations, it was only after that that relativity started to gain acceptance. Had you polled scientists at the time before eddington's observations, you would get more than a 97% consensus that it was BS. Scientists were doing their job, being skeptical until experiments and predicted observations validated the hypothesis of general relativity.

 

[bishop]

If you allow a non science like climate science to be considered a science, then you have devalued the entire notion of science. You have already bent over backwards to accommodate climate science why not bend a inch further and start accepting creation science?

 

[FAST]

An untested theory doesn't mean that it's wrong.

They couldn't test Einstein's theory until later, but he was right.

However, they can prove or duplicate the greenhouse effect, albeit on a much smaller scale.

How are "they" going to test the theory that man's burning of fossil fuels is mostly responsible for the current claimed global warming,...???

That is the problem isn't it,...just an untestable theory,...nothing more.

Proving the greenhouse effect proves NOTHING with regards to MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING,...the green house effect has happened before man,...therefore meaningless.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Ball relies on specific data. If that data is wrong, simply tell me why.

Ball makes the (in my view, unnecessary) argument that the data relied upon by others has been purposefully manipulated. I'm less interested in this. If Ball's data is right (regardless of why others have tried to rely on other data), the only question that remains is whether his analysis stemming from that data is also right.

Ok, can you first post a link to the data referred to by Ball?
If he's legit, all his data should be available, as it is with all climatologists now.
Here's his site.
http://drtimball.com/

Lets start by figuring out exactly what this 'data' you say he is providing is, where it came from and what it says?
Fair?

 

[Bud Plug]

Would you take a Nobel Quantum Physicist word as gospel if he tells you that vaccines cause autism?

I would, if his opinion had to do with the part that quantum physics plays in how vaccines work.

Likewise, if a world class physicist says that the views espoused by climate science don't accord with the laws of physics, or with general principles of scientific study, I would not discount his opinion because he has not spent his life studying climate change. Perhaps it would mean that climate scientists would have been better served studying physics.

 

[Bud Plug]

Ok, can you first post a link to the data referred to by Ball?
If he's legit, all his data should be available, as it is with all climatologists now.
Here's his site.
http://drtimball.com/

Lets start by figuring out exactly what this 'data' you say he is providing is, where it came from and what it says?

Fair?

He refers to the data he's relying on in his presentation. He makes specific reference to charts and graphs, and speaks about where he has obtained this material. Where is the mystery here?

 

[Frankfooter]

He refers to the data he's relying on in his presentation. He makes specific reference to charts and graphs, and speaks about where he has obtained this material. Where is the mystery here?

I'll talk the data and information, but really don't want to wade through is 2 hour long talk to find it.
Can you at least point out the times on the video where you see this 'data'?
I couldn't find any reference to it on his site.

 

[Bud Plug]

I'll talk the data and information, but really don't want to wade through is 2 hour long talk to find it.
Can you at least point out the times on the video where you see this 'data'?
I couldn't find any reference to it on his site.

Sorry, spending 2 hours to watch the presentation was enough investment for me. Didn't you already watch the video? If so, you'd probably find it as quickly as I could. The data I'm talking about has been organized into charts and tables which he refers to in his presentation.

 

[Frankfooter]

Sorry, spending 2 hours to watch the presentation was enough investment for me. Didn't you already watch the video? If so, you'd probably find it as quickly as I could. The data I'm talking about has been organized into charts and tables which he refers to in his presentation.

Ok, wasted about 10 minutes skipping through his presentation.

The charts loosely fit into three categories:
1) cherry picking
2) wrong
3) irrelevant

He talks about 'the pause' which has been found to have not been a pause, but just cherry picking the dates starting from the warmest El Nino year (a moviefan favourite) and going for 15 years to a particularly cold year. Its a claim that only works from that year, and has been shown to be wrong from the recent set of record breaking years (14 of the 15 warmest years have happened this century).

He talks about the hacked emails, old crap thats been cleared in multiple investigations, yet he keeps pushing lies that have been proven lies in court.

He talks about ice ages, to infer that because ice ages and major climate changes do happen naturally that its not a big deal that we mess with the climate. Ignoring the fact that destabilizing a climate that can have radical changes is really even less smart then changing one that's stable. If you know that the earth is prone to ice ages and extreme warm times that should make you extra cautious about tipping the balance one way, instead of what Ball proposes.

Really, I could go on, but every single one of his claims are easy to debunk, its really the same old that moviefan tries to push as well.

Only that Ball claims to be a climatologist when in fact he's just a geology professor.

If you have anything more specific, let me know, but really, everything he says is suspect.

 

[basketcase]

I would, if his opinion had to do with the part that quantum physics plays in how vaccines work.....

And how much of his opinion on global warming has to do with his studies of quantum mechanics? Oh that's right, none.

 

[frankcastle]

We are using up natural resources in an inefficient manner.

We are destroying natural habitats.

Part of what allows the planet to fluctuate in temperature and carbon dioxide is having plants and other useful organisms that participate in the carbon cycle and what not.

Those highs and lows did not take place in our time on the planet in the last two thousand years.

If people believe that you can proceed without caution and the planet will take care of itself be careful for what you wish for. It wouldn't take much of a temperature increase pr drop to starve us out....... never mind that the food might be too polluted to eat.

Look you dont need a genius to tell you that what we are doing to the planet is going to have to be paid for at some point. Maybe it turns out to not be global warming. But at some point we are going to be fucked. Does it make you feel any better to know that what kills us is something other than global warming? Either way you are dead and it is directly a result of industry and human activity.

 

[K Douglas]

Ok, can you first post a link to the data referred to by Ball?
If he's legit, all his data should be available, as it is with all climatologists now.
Here's his site.
http://drtimball.com/

Lets start by figuring out exactly what this 'data' you say he is providing is, where it came from and what it says?
Fair?

Is Mann's hockey stick data available FF? Guess he's not legit then in your books.
You do realize the peer review process is completely biased.
Not one model these IPCC driven scientists have produced have remotely replicated actual temperature changes.
Dr Tim Ball has a book called the Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. All the data he uses in this presentation is annotated there.

 

[Frankfooter]

Is Mann's hockey stick data available FF? Guess he's not legit then in your books.

Yes, right here.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/suppinfo/nature02478.html

Not one model these IPCC driven scientists have produced have remotely replicated actual temperature changes.

OMG!
You are so right!
Not one single IPCC scientist has personally managed to change the temperature of the world significantly.

Dr Tim Ball has a book called the Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. All the data he uses in this presentation is annotated there.

Quack!

Show us the data, I could use the laughs.
Start with showing us how he claims to be a climatologist but is really a geology professor.

 

[bishop]

We are using up natural resources in an inefficient manner.

We are destroying natural habitats.

Part of what allows the planet to fluctuate in temperature and carbon dioxide is having plants and other useful organisms that participate in the carbon cycle and what not.

Those highs and lows did not take place in our time on the planet in the last two thousand years.

If people believe that you can proceed without caution and the planet will take care of itself be careful for what you wish for. It wouldn't take much of a temperature increase pr drop to starve us out....... never mind that the food might be too polluted to eat.

Look you dont need a genius to tell you that what we are doing to the planet is going to have to be paid for at some point. Maybe it turns out to not be global warming. But at some point we are going to be fucked. Does it make you feel any better to know that what kills us is something other than global warming? Either way you are dead and it is directly a result of industry and human activity.

You remind me of the people who complain about high energy prices and then go on to complain that we do not have enough renewable sources of energy, they never feel they need the reconcile their divergent views.

You would give up all our progress for some BS doomsday scenario? We live to 80 now, you want to go back to the stone age and die at the age of 25? You want to trade a certainty that without cheap energy most of the world would starve for a fantasy that with cheap energy most of the world would starve due to AGW.

Come on, pull your head out of your ass.