Q:I commented on the post, not sure if you read that though. In the "why are oceans salty" video it didn't explain why they are salty, rather just generally why there are minerals in water. Rocks aren't just salt or even proportionally salt and weathering doesn't just release salt. So why are they Salty as opposed to irony or whatever? Iron might be easily just heavy, but the other mentioned minerals suspend and they aren't "light"...
I have reached this Tyrannosaurus through this interesting entry on wikipedia: List of transitional fossils (fossilized remains of any life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group… more).
I’ve always been a proud skeptic of the (alarmism on) Anthropogenic Global Warming, and now I’m very happy to fully endorse this recap (Know the Facts - A skeptic’s guide to climate change) from berkeleyearth.org and its main conclusions (my comments in brackets):
- Stay skeptical (always)
- Practice and promote energy efficiency (by principles)
- Recognize that most future emissions will come from China and the developing world (and Science and technology depends on that, and they are the only thing who eventually could save us from a global crisis)
- Demand sustainable and cost-effective solutions in the US and around the world (yep, pragmatism should be always above politic, and, of course, above science tainted by politics).
So please, do not let that some interested people (or gullible persons or guided by a specific agenda) to use Science (and propaganda) in order to impose damaging policies for everyone in general, and for developing countries in particular. Not in the name of Science, it does not work, Science always win, because…
….reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
I knew that some people would go to bray about this entry:
- “Um, no. Simply wrongheaded and idiotic. Nothing personal, but I pity you…”
(I only see idiocy in your comment, in bulk, read the report please)
- “Hey if that makes you feel better about driving your SUV……”
(I have no car, I use public transport)
(more surely coming next)
wiredclover (and calitony who echoes him) seems not happy with the “pamphlet” because it broke with the (unfounded) alarmism, and probably because does not call “negationist” to skeptics. The fact is that everything in the paper is true (as established data), and everything trying to go farther is or propaganda, or delusions, or pseudoscience… typically a mixture of all three.
To view the state of the art (and debate) on the subject, I recommend to take a look at climatedialogue.org you will see that discussions are due to the uncertainties and ignorance of many mechanisms, and the one who sells certainty there where there is not, is the one who has to explain their arguments, not the people recognizing the uncertainties.
battalio complains that the data (??) are self referring to their own research (not peer-reviewed), totally losing the scope of this paper: a basic compilation of what is known and omitting what is mere speculation.
About the claim “sea levels are going to rise catastrophically” there is no sign of it, and the “catastrophic” rise of sea level already occurred 15,000 years ago as befits an interglacial period:
The chances of a future catastrophic growth in sea level (or not) will depend on our ability to adapt, not of the CO2 emissions, as far as climate sensitivity is quite certainly much less that 3 C per century (IPCC itself has not been able to give a “more likely data” in the AR5 report, and indeed they decreased 0.5° the lower limit).
Of course there are all kinds of speculation (unverifiable and infansables, ie pseudo-scientific), but analysis of the data leave little room for alarmism.
“I also hate it when people misappropriate the quotes of scientists with no context, thinking that it will prove their point.”
Well, the context was Feynman complaining about politization of science (on the affair of challenger disaster), I supposed that most of the readers would realize this. And this is the problem of Climate Change “Science”, it is all about politic, and economy, and geostrategy, i.e. is a Social Science with no prediction capacities.
“I’m very disappointed in this blog.”
I’m sorry on that, but I can do nothing about.
"benlylebedard said: Pseudo-science is beauty. Unfollowed.”
I’m sorry, but I will surely get over the loss.
Dear battalio, first of all thanks for your tone. And you’re right, English is not my first language, and maybe that will influence when I try to find the right words to explain my feelings. In any case I’ll try again.
I don’t understand why you don’t like the term “proud skeptic”. Being skeptic on Climate Change is not an easy task (is neither easy nor as a blogger or as a geophysicist), you are exposed to all kind of insults, falacies, and pure lies. And that is why finding a site that clearly explains that we do not deny most of the facts, is already in itself a step forward, and for that reason I have highlighted them in Science is Beauty, and because I also affirmed that I am proud to be skeptic (no denier).
About sea level I’d like to say that I have linked this paper on purpose because does not displays predictions, shows only trends and acceleration in observations (facts), and everything else are speculations, more or less believable or grounded, but speculations.
You can’t say (well, you shouldn’t)
"In several centuries we will have a terrible problem." [because the humans/because the CO2]
First because you don’t know the emissions 20, 50, 100, 200 years from now. Nobody knows, and nobody knows about the energy mix for these years. Nuclear fusion, new generation of fission, renovable energies… who knows…
Second because even knowing these (essential) parameters, we don’t know several mechanisms on feedbacks and sensitivities… After 150 years of climatology our understanding of the climate is better, but we still have essentially a very basic and low predictive reliability knowledge.
Not recognizing this things is to trick people, and trick people is Politics not Science. We have many (real) problems, even human generated problems (pollution, deforestation), and diseases, poverty, wars… to invent other problems based on speculation and admittedly incomplete numerical models.
In short, my opinion is that everything is very exaggerated, politically contaminated, and in the hands of lobbies (falsely) environmentalists and companies of renewable energy (not far of the Big Oil). The Science behind seems too weak to me, so it is absurd speaking of the future with such certainty, is a mirage. Makes me this a monster…? it may be so, but we’ll see who is closer to the truth.
Marked-point says: “i don’t like your thinking, though i can’t say that i believe even 80% that global warming is real, i do think that people have caused a problem with burning fossil fuels.”
Yep, nothing is free, everything has cost, but in my opinion, in the overall calculation, the last two centuries have been the most productive for humans, and have laid the foundation for solving many problems, including those generated by ourselves. I try to be optimist, not a dreamer.
battalio, I assure you that I have thanked your friendly tone most sincerely (you do not know the stupid things I’ve been call here as soon as I’m out of political correctness). So I thank you again your politeness because not always is possible to interchange opinions in this way.
I think that the problem with the wording (skeptics and/or anti-alarmist) is included in my criticism to climate alarmism. There are very few skeptics (skeptics of alarmism I mean) who deny what alarmists say that we deny. And I have featured this initiative in Science is Beauty, precisely for this very reason. Because it explains to people that many of the things that climate science affirms, are accepted for most of the people involved on this business, regardless of the degree of skepticism.
Of course there are also crazy people, as those who deny the greenhouse effect or things like that, but that has nothing to do with the healthy scientific skepticism (I’m thinking in Richard Linzden, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry and thousands of other unknown scientists). And this is the skepticism I’m claiming, legitimately I think.
I’m physicist, I understand many of the problems who arise from trying to predict climate. I know we have mechanism with a big uncertainty (aerosols and clouds mainly, but could be more as cosmic rays and its influence in nucleation of clouds, its dependency on solar cycles…), and so I am wary with (many) predictions, at least of its emphatically certainty when stating something that it’s only remote possibilities.
Real science, and real scientist never speak with that certainty, because they know it is not real. And when someone say we are going to die tomorrow (or in 2050 for that matter), as I said before, it’s not science. There is a political message more or less hidden which can be legitimate or not, but that discussion is not science, it’s policy. And they are two topics that mix poorly (and this is too the meaning of Feynman in this talk)
Finally, that it is very late here, I have not read your link to Science, I will try it tomorrow, but remember that we’re not talking about sea rises itself, we speak of the responsibility of CO2 (our CO2) in them, and of its catastrophic nature.