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

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:58:22 -0600, qrus19@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:57:44 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

So you have changed your mind about human effect on climate since you
started.

Well... no. I didn't really doubt that humans were having an effect
on the Earth. That's pretty much obvious, actually. You just need to
have eyes to see with and the rest stands there and slaps you in the
face. However, I didn't feel that the anthropogenic global warming
aspect was as urgent an issue as I later came to understand. I was
thinking in terms of centuries, before. Now I'm thinking in sooner
terms for meaningful change.

I'll continue to research and if I find supporting
information I'll join.

No, this isn't about joining or not joining. The process of learning
and education should never end. Some things you will find far more
convincing. Some things you will find good reason to set aside for
now. But your conclusions will improve as you gain a better and more
comprehensive view of the facts. However, I can assure you that if
you embark on this with honesty and sincerity and engage the details
yourself, the general direction of your personal trek will be towards
the same distant view that climate scientists are well on their own
way towards. The science is solid and you cannot escape a similar
trajectory, no matter your starting point, if you are able to analyze
logically, be sincere and honest about what you find, work towards a
comprehensive view, and don't be arbitrarily selective about the facts
you are willing to consider.

For now I'll just have to agree to disagree
with the human caused group.

Like I said, you start where you start. My only caveat is to remind
you that it is a starting position based upon ignorance and not upon a
comprehensive knowledge. So don't imagine there is much to be made
about your disagreement. It's an internal state of mind, but it
doesn't mean much in terms of an external reality. As you learn the
details, your internal state of mind will shift to match. Reality
does not alter itself to fit the way you want to think about things.

Hey I'd even like to see less use of
hydrocarbon based fuels but it's so that we well have them for other
uses.

Hehe. Yes, I think that thought crossed my mind almost as early as I
can recall. I remember, as a child, hearing that there are some
really nice plastics and specialty items that couldn't be made easily
any other way. And as a child I was thinking, "Well, we should save
this stuff, shouldn't we?" Of course, my thinking is a more complex
than that today.

I don't think we are likely to use up fossil fuels. The overriding
reason is that as they become scarcer, they automatically become more
expensive to use in our current market system. So the price rises and
the demand declines to match. Which means less is taken out of the
ground, etc. There will always be some left around for the most vital
purposes, even if we do nothing otherwise to change our collective
market ways.

....

Everyone starts out somewhere, and since ignorance isn't knowledge,
those starting places are pretty much all over the map, so to speak.
Roughly, at random. I don't think it's all that important where you
start at. Just keep plowing away through the facts, with honesty
about what you find. The rest will follow in its own time.

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: 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 ... their own work without interfering with publication copyrights -- I ... channel" stuff on the environment. ...
    (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
    ... There are some papers, peer-reviewed and excellent, available on the ... Some scientists, for example, won't use ANY Elsevier publication for ... their own work without interfering with publication copyrights -- I ... giving you a serious, collegel level climate science education, you ...
    (sci.electronics.design)