Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:13:52 -0600, qrus19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:55:55 -0700, Richard Henry
<pomerado@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 3, 2:20 pm, qru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

That's my point I've seen no more evidience that science is
being used than I would in my local conartists lounge.


Maybe that's because of where you are looking. Please name the last
three environmental/climatological science journal articles you have
read.

Please name me three that I can read free? I have no money at this
point to spend on anything except food housing and medical care.

There are some papers, peer-reviewed and excellent, available on the
web. However, that is hit-and-miss. Some scientists consider it a
matter of personal responsibility to arrange for "draft versions" to
be available on the web, for example, even in cases where, say,
Elsevier, is doing the publishing (one of the worst, in terms of
charging way too much for science papers their publications print.)
Some scientists, for example, won't use ANY Elsevier publication for
their work, on that basis alone. And folks doing that usually find
other avenues as well as making their papers available over the web.
But these are hit-and-miss. So if you are looking for a particular
subject and want to truly follow up on the details, by going back
through referenced papers and so on, your better bet is to do what I
do -- contact the authors.

Start with the lead author. Be polite and friendly. Don't tell them
that you plan to trash their name as soon as you get the paper. Tell
them, instead, the hopefully honest truth -- that you are interested
in what they wrote and would like to read it for yourself. You can
let them know how far away a library might be, or that you cannot
afford even the copying costs if you want. But honestly, I don't
think any of that is ever needed. I've had an author or two take
their sweet time, once or twice, but I've never had them say no to a
polite, gentle request. They are entitled, generally, to hand out
their own work without interfering with publication copyrights -- I
think most publication deals permit them that much latitude. Seems
that way, anyway.

Just an email away.

I'll check and see if I can find some online but last time I saw a
special on the science channel about the environment I saw no evidence
just hearsay.

Of course. What do you expect? In a newsgroup, or a news program, or
any venue where informed scientists are not provided sufficient time
to deal with questions and objections completely and fully, you will
find little else than "sound bites." This also includes "science
channel" stuff on the environment. Remember who they are trying to
talk to -- essentially at "a grade 8 level of education."

Those who control these media outlets aren't really interested in
giving you a serious, collegel level climate science education, you
know. First, it costs a dear penny to provide that much space and/or
time. Second, the caring readership would probably be 2 -- the author
and perhaps one of his or her family members. So why do it? No
business person in their right mind would.

So when a program is prepared, they may try and get the best
hand-waving from scientists that they can, but they darned well are
not going to get lost into the details of radiation physics and all of
the various modes by which energy is transferred around. And that is
just one tiny facet that would require itself perhaps some number of
months training to someone who already has a decent physics background
and is competent at math. Getting the evidence itself from a TV
program simply isn't going to happen.

That's why it's your job, if you care for earning your own opinion
instead of having to take others' on their say-so.

Aside from writing the authors themselves for their papers, you will
need some background. One of the reasons why climate science is
interesting, is that it involves a very wide variety of fields
interacting together in important ways. You can come at it from just
liking the outdoors and get assigned all manner of important field
work to do, if that is your ken; to being a died-in-the-wool physics
theorist who can't even match a pair of socks and finding incredible
areas where your imagination can roam and help organize understanding.
But whereever you find an interest, you will usually find a great deal
of depth to keep you busy for far longer than for which you will find
enough time.

Since much of the US public "heat of discussion" centers on CO2,
something that is probably one of the better understood parts of
climate science despite what might be contrary appearances when
watching TV or reading a newspaper, you could start with studying one
of Svante Arrhenius's papers -- I think that would be dated back to
the turn of the century more than a hundred years back. He was the
Swedish chemist, who at the age of 26 advanced the ionic theory of
electrolytes and electrolytic dissociation -- got a Nobel in 1903 for
that. I have a copy of his paper and can pass it along, if you care
to read it. (PDF) That's one place to start on CO2. Then work your
way forward. There is another paper in 1971, by Rasool and Schneider,
that is an important milestone. The paper is peer-reviewed and dead
wrong in its conclusions about CO2. But it is good in terms of giving
you a simple start on a 1D analysis that is useful to grasp and not
too difficult and it also introduces some new ideas on aerosols and
their impacts. And that is a segue for much more that follows. So
it's a good paper to read and understand, as well. Not for its
conclusions, but for the way they think about the problems. Dr.
Schneider actually figures quite prominently in later papers, as you
will find if you continue reading more.

State an area that you think is important to you and that you believe
will help you decide whether or not there is good evidence available.
Just take a poke. Pick anything you think might prove to be weak in
climate science, and then dig and dig into just that part of it. I
think you will find, if you are honest and earnestly hardworking in
your investigation of it, it holds up even better than you earlier
imagined could be possible. That's been my experience. And I came at
this stuff, back in the late 1980's, feeling that human impacts on
global warming wouldn't be _important_ for centuries, yet. I've
changed that opinion over the years. But that's where I started.

Best of luck and if you are serious, I can provide papers and names of
authors and their emails so that you can contact them and get papers
without having to pay for them.

Jon
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: HadCRUT and other datasets
    ... I actually read papers on the subject -- if you count only those I've ... one that keeps peer-reviewed papers on climate science and one ... selective in the facts they consider they could rationally conclude ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Some Thought On Intelligent Design - WAS: OT Is George Bush Drinking?
    ... The IDers are making claims of *science* ... matter of the journals to which they are submitted? ... Shouldn't you read a few of those ostensibly suppressed papers ... What makes you think there has been no peer review? ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: Scientnfic Repression in the 21th Century-The Next Galileo Galilei ??????
    ... > The history of science teaches that the greatest advances in the ... > incomprehension of eminent scientists. ... > papers authored by credentialed physicists, i.e., those who ... > consistently had papers approved for publication in peer refereed ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Global Warming: Junk science at its [best] worst
    ... three environmental/climatological science journal articles you have ... There are some papers, peer-reviewed and excellent, available on the ... them, instead, the hopefully honest truth -- that you are interested ... giving you a serious, collegel level climate science education, you ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: information suppression by universities
    ... IEEE state that if papers were open source it would threaten the ... and the IEEE rights to publish such so, ... of the process is part of the cost of doing that publication. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
Loading