"I received a B.A. in Mathematics and Geography, a M.S. in Geography, and a Ph.D. in
Climatology, all from the University of Delaware."
STATEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress....
Linlyons,
It is funny to me that you bring up the consensus instead of addressing the actual issue. If scientists feel they will lose funding and stature due to taking contrary views, they are less likely to do so. Therefore, without properly addressing the issue of whether this pressure is actually occurring, your consensus is meaningless. Indeed your last statement is very telling. It is telling that exactly what these scientists are saying is occurring, is occurring.
Let me answer my own question?
Call Fox News! They might have a new pundit!
It's interesting that you would think I'd get upset. The first thing that is upsetting about your "question" is that it is not a question at all--usually you try to at least attempt to disguise your political rants, but at least in this case you have dropped the pretense of the Question and Answer format entirely.
As for "honor, integrity, objectivity and professionalism" where would you put yourself? Presumably you bring up Gleick because he used dishonest means to uncover the dirty secrets about the Heartland Institute, while you have no qualms about using illegally obtained emails to trash climate scientists as does your paragon of virtue, Koutsoyiannis. Frankly, I think you, Gleick and Koutsoyiannis should all be ashamed of yourselves.
I don't really understand what your point is, anyway. If Caliservative were still active and applied the same standards to deniers that he did to scientific realists, he would point out that you're using a logical fallacy where you're trying to substitute the behavior of a couple of scientists to reject the findings of thousands. It's not only a broad brush argument, it's completely off the topic of the science. If we're going to use the ethical argument, what happened to Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz? Did they slip your mind?
I don't really know anything about Koutsoyiannis, although anyone that would trash fellow scientists because of the opinions expressed in illegally obtained documents brings him down in my opinion, and clearly he is quoting snippets of emails in the same intentionally misleading fashion as denial propaganda websites.
I have been a staunch defender of Bengsston in this forum, although his escapade with the Global Warming Policy Foundation greatly lowered his standing in my mind. Both for joining it, leaving it, then melodramatically whining about the affair later.
Trenberth I believe is a great scientist, but I don't know him personally. I'm not going to judge him from his private emails.
I think too much attention is paid to Mann and the "hockey stick". It's apparent that he's been viciously attacked for it--some of which he may have brought on himself. No one deserves to have government power abused in an attempt to harass, though, as Ken Cuccinelli did.
What's most absurd is that ignore the thousands of scientists whose name and personalities you don't know and focus on whatever names you pull from denial blogs.
EDIT: I'm afraid I've just caught graphicconception blatantly lying or just doing what all deniers do--getting basic information wrong. He says:
"Consider the testimony of another Dooge medal winner, David Legates."
The problem is that Koutsoyiannis is the ONLY Dooge medal winner there has ever been, since it was just established this year. However, it is a spin-off of the International Hydrology Prize...but Legates has never won that, either.
I'm not sure whether graphicconception has been duped, is a liar, or just says things without checking on them, but he just failed peer review.
http://iahs.info/About-IAHS/Competition-...
The truth is all one can use to expose this nonsense. It seems these environmental zealots don't care who they send to do their dirty work and they will trounce on scientists who won't "tow the line".
Off the subject a bit - Watching Obama perform his magic in getting one soldier freed from the clutches of the Taliban in Afghanistan (after the soldier became totally selfish and stupid in his own adventures), while releasing 5 terrorists from Guantanamo Bay who have killed many people, makes you wonder what his real agenda is when it comes to making his own rules on handling climate matters. Just shows how ignorant and stupid he really is. Anyone who defends any decision this President makes, defies any logic on the evolution of humans. It's definitely "devolution" when it comes to one human (2 in this case) becoming smarter as he goes along in life. His father might as well have masturbated in a Hollywood flower plot, because Obama is acting and performing like a blooming idiot seeking a National Academy of Sciences Award!!!
Jim Z has pretty much nailed it down. It is nothing but politics. Have you ever noticed how it always entails the financial aspect?
Additionally :
For once I'd have to agree with gcnp58 with his link, but entirely for a different reason. It seems that the 30 year trends are not even close enough to give an accurate anthropogenic signal especially for the short time span we have been using GCMs. The GCMs are constantly being updated and used in different ways to find the signal. Climate science is intent on showing this signal for all to understand, but it seems that environmentalists (whether they be scientists or environmental reporters) keep screwing it up by jumping to fatalistic conclusions.
Maybe it would be better if the U.S. population "elected" a climate change review board. It seems that conservatism is still strong enough to force a spirited debate on the matter. Maybe that would also bring Al Gore's misconceptions to light for all to see.
And I see that you attack the integrity of Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth.
Raisin Caine
< If scientists feel they will lose funding and stature due to taking contrary views, they are less likely to do so.>
Typical denialist. Why would scientists lose funding for taking contrary views, when the government is pushing contrary views.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
As far as stature is concerned, they give Nobel Prizes to scientists who have revolutionary ideas, not by echoing what they learn in high school. If someone could prove his cloud forcing hypothesis to be correct, Roy Spencer would be guaranteed a Nobel Prize.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
You guys keep mentioning this guy or that guy.
They're a very small minority in the global warming debate.
The mainstream scientific understanding is that global warming is real, caused by burning fossil fuel, and will be a major climate problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."
https://www.google.com/#q=scientific+org...
GET OVER IT.
You're the Creationists in the global warming debate.
Edit: Raisin Caine, "Linlyons, It is funny to me that you bring up the consensus instead of addressing the actual issue."
Today, there are 10 issues.
1. There is scientific consensus around the world, even from scientists that aren't paid to research global warming.
10. How to politically get over the dinosauric distortions posted by AGW deniers.
(you can read binary, can't you? ;)
Frankly, you, James, BB, and several others are lost causes.
I post so that there will be some balance,
rather than the dishonest distorted denial that we see from the "gasoline will be $20 a gallon" AGW denial discriminators of delusion and division.
Edit again (from another thread that's closed): Raisin Caine "But if you think liberals are any smarter or more educated than conservatives. LOL. That is simply not true."
Yes, this is a popular topic.
And there are lots of polls that show divergent results.
Hey, this is cool:
http://www.myplan.com/education/colleges...
There are several points (again in binary) that I noticed.
1. The 50% liberal 50% conservative divide is 2/3 liberal and 1/3 conservative.
10. There is a steeper drop off in the division within an instutution on the conservative end than on the liberal end. EG, the 20/80 divide on the conservative end is #14 while on the liberal end, it's #36 from the top of the list.
11. The 1/3:2/3 divide is about #50 on the conservative list, and about #100 on the liberal side of the list.
100. There are 3 institutions that are more than 90% conservative. There are 11 that are more than 90% liberal.
It would seem that, contrary to what you claim, and what you'd like to believe, liberals are more educated.
Distinguished climate scientists, policymakers, and commentators will participate in a major national conference on climate science and climate change at UC Santa Cruz on Friday, February 28 and Saturday, March 1, 2014.
"Climate Science and Policy through the Looking Glass" is co-sponsored by the UCSC divisions of Social Sciences and Physical and Biological Sciences. Keynote sessions Friday and Saturday evenings and three panel discussions on Saturday are open to the public and free of charge. All events take place at the College Nine/Ten Multipurpose Room on the UCSC campus.
The primary goal of the conference is "to bring broad public attention to the challenges of climate change and provide compelling reasons why effective action is immediately needed," said Social Sciences Dean Sheldon Kamieniecki.
Keynote speakers are renowned climate scientists Susan Solomon, of MIT, a chemist, and Michael E. Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, a meteorologist.
Fred Keeley Lecture
The conference opens Friday, February 28 at 7:30 p.m. with Solomon, the Ellen Swallow Richards Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Science at MIT, who will deliver the Fred Keeley Lecture on Environmental Policy. The Keeley Lecture series was established at UCSC in 2003 and is named for Fred Keeley, a Santa Cruz County civic leader who has helped shape environmental policy in California.
Solomon is well known for having pioneered the theory explaining why the ozone hole occurs over Antarctica, and for obtaining some of the first chemical measurements that helped establish that chlorofluorocarbons are a cause. She spent most of her career at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration before joining MIT in 2011 and says she is interested in "anything that affects the chemistry of our atmosphere."
During the day Saturday, beginning at 9 a.m., three panels will convene around questions concerning the current state of climate change research, on how climate change can be mitigated (10:45 a.m.), and lastly (2 p.m) on adapting to climate change.
UCSC climate experts
Panels will be moderated by Paul Koch, UCSC dean of Physical and Biological Sciences; Daniel Press, executive director, Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, UCSC Environmental Studies; and Erika Zavaleta, Pepper-Giberson chair, UCSC Environmental Studies.
Distinguished scholars, practitioners, and commentators including noted environmental journalist Andrew C. Revkin, writer of the New York Times "Dot Earth" blog, will take part. A complete list of the panels and participants can be found here.
Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State, will deliver the keynote address Saturday evening at 7:30 p.m. He is the author of Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming, and The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. He is also a co-founder and regular contributor to the award-winning science website RealClimate.org.
He has received many honors and awards including NOAA's outstanding publication award in 2002 and selection by Scientific American as one of the 50 leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002. He was awarded the National Conservation Achievement Award for science by the National Wildlife Federation in 2013..
'See something, say something'
Mann has called for scientists to take an active role beyond their research. Last month, in a New York Times opinion piece, "If You See Something Say Something", he wrote: "If scientists choose not to engage in the public debate, we leave a vacuum that will be filled by those whose agenda is one of short-term self-interest. There is a great cost to society if scientists fail to participate in the larger conversation — if we do not do all we can to ensure that the policy debate is informed by an honest assessment of the risks. In fact, it would be an abrogation of our responsibility to society if we remained quiet in the face of such a grave threat."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...
>>How many here are going to dismiss and/or attack this man of integrity and skepticism just because of his position on the science of climate change which doesn't happen to be "mainstream"?<<
I’ll volunteer. I dismiss him not because he is wrong – which he is – but because he is a politically driven hack whose every word contradicts the self-proclaimed skepticism he claims as a priori truth – not unlike the way you bestow him with the a posteriori truth of integrity solely because he agrees with you.
Let me answer my own question first, he looks like this: http://iahs.info/About-IAHS/Competition--Events/International-Hydrology-Prize/International-Hydrology-Prize-Winners/Demetris-Koutsoyiannis/
What does a distinguished climate scientist think about the "climate establishment"? Like this: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/beware-saviors-by-demetris-koutsoyiannis/
How many here are going to dismiss and/or attack this man of integrity and skepticism just because of his position on the science of climate change which doesn't happen to be "mainstream"? Are we in for another Lennart Bengtsson moment?
Put Koutsoyiannis and Bengtsson against say Mann and Trenberth. Use the categories of honor, integrity, objectivity and professionalism. What do you come up with?
I don't have a problem with what he is saying in the matter of climate change and the politically charged environment the whole issue has gravitated to. And I am responding on the content of the article, not his research-which I am looking forward to studying when I have a little more time and am not distracted by the work day.
However, his comments in the article itself are personal experience and opinion, but he seems pretty credible to me. I wish I could go to all the research links right now, but I just can't so I will let my comments on the article itself stand and maybe be able to elaborate later from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't really feel any particular loyalty to any political ideology, party or one side or the other in the climate change debate. I may be a relatively rare commodity in that regard, but for a brief period of time in the distant past I did mistake myself for God's gift to women everywhere, so I have been wrong before...
Thank you for the 'question' accompanied by the links.
Edit: I don't see anything outside of the ordinary realm in his studies-I may have missed something, and one of the links didn't work for me. The response does note some falsehoods on his part with the ongoing explanation of the variables in play, which of course relates to statistical probablities. Interesting enough exchange but nothing that really seems to advance the dialogue. On a personal level I didn't find any new information or feel influenced one way or the other.
<<>>
Shouldn't that simply be common sense?
IMO, the whole politics is all about differing opinions about what is the best course of action. Alarmists push their politics with flawed science but don't care because if it turns out they are wrong, at least their politics has been furthered. If it was a conservative agenda that exaggerated science, I doubt alarmists would be so eager to excuse the exaggerations.
somewhat serpentine - like and smelling of noodles
