I don't think anyone in any field of science would claim to know everything or what would be the need for further research, science is always trying to increase our understanding of the universe whether it's trying to find a cure for the Flu or Ebola or trying to understand the dynamics of a tornado or how DNA works.
Anyone off the street with a basic understanding of the science can get a basic understanding of AGW, but only basic, sadly deniers often don't have even this basic level of understanding, they would rather quote absurd conspiracy theories, than link to science and they don't link to science because they simply don't have any, which is why they have to use Watts and C3 and other denier blogs, or invent things like "the hockeystick has been disproved" or "Al Gore is bribing everyone" or "climategate proved something" which it didn't, other than deniers ability to invent conspiracy theories, when deniers didn't like the outcome of the inquiry into climategate (which found scientists had done nothing wrong) they simply tried to invent another conspiracy, at about this point the mid-stream media stopped reporting denier nonsense, not because of any conspiracy but because it had become all to obvious deniers where simply inventing stories.
This year we saw the warmest year yet and denier are already spinning up the conspiracy wheel to try and explain that away, and it is all starting to sound pretty hollow, but then I seen them here for the last 7 years talking about us cooling and the Arctic growing even as we warmed and the Arctic shrank.
As they pretended sea level was falling when it was actually rising.
I don't think they are being pretentious, I think they are lost in a fantasy world but it's one fast running out of fantasies.
Pretentious? Hmmm...no, I think ignorant is a better word for it. I mean, anyone who's passed basic high school science knows the difference between "climate" and "weather". Ha!
Yes those who think we don't know enough about climate to determine the industrial revolution is why bad weather happens are the pretentious ones.
Just the opposite. Skeptics exercise humility. We are not so full of ourselves as to believe that we have the definitive answer to Man's culpability as regards alleged Catastrophic, Man-caused, Global Warming.
As evidenced by failed predictions of Doom by self-proclaimed "experts", the science of climate change is in its infancy, with much to be learned.
Am I pretentious because I know alarmists don't know as much as they think they do? I am not surprised that you might think so. Those who really really believe in something are kind of hard to convince that they may be wrong.
No , most that denied the GW spent the time to look into what was going on and use there own mind to come up with the decision with out the influence of so Hollywood actor looking for a few new fans .
No! Climate scientist of the world are not in agreement.
I have talked to climate scientists here and will say that I am not in their league. Their league is obviously far more biased than I would ever allow myself to become.
It does not require the slightest technical knowledge to know predictive failure when you see it:
1) The weather turned cold in the 1970s, we were told to give up our wanton industrial prosperity or we'd be punished with an ice age.
We gave up nothing and the weather changed as it is wont to do.
2) The weather turned warm in the 1980s, we were told to give up our wanton industrial prosperity or we'd be punished with a catastrophic Global Warming.
We gave up nothing and yet about a third of a century later there are no boat tours of the coastal skyscrapers. We have at best a slight warming trend.
None of this conclusively proves we won't see catastrophic climate change, natural or man-made, but it fairly conclusively proves that the Doomsday Wing of climatology is being "more than a little pretentious" in claiming what they can predict. It also proves that they most definitely have an agenda.
When they say, "We don't know enough about global warming?" are they implying that they should be considered in the same league as climate scientists?
Do they really think that listening to the 6 o'clock weather is the sum total of what climate scientists have had to do to earn their degree?
No! Pretentious is thinking that, on a planet that is billions of years old, you can determine what is both normal and appropriate by temperature measurements made within the last 125 years.
Just the opposite. Skeptics exercise humility. We are not so full of ourselves as to believe that we have the definitive answer to Man's culpability as regards alleged Catastrophic, Man-caused, Global Warming.
As evidenced by failed predictions of Doom by self-proclaimed "experts", the science of climate change is in its infancy, with much to be learned.
I certainly wouldn't consider myself a 'denier' in any sense of the word but you make an interesting point inasmuch as I am of the belief that we don't know enough about Climate Change to make sweeping decisions about environmental policies specifically to mitigate climate change. You point is well taken-perhaps I am the one who doesn't know enough about it rather than the field of Climate Science-and recently, I have been more of the "six o'clock" news sort, watching and reading media reports about what is going on without delving much deeper into the underlying science. As I consider your question and the implications therein further, I can say that my interest over the last couple of years has been more about the psychological dynamic of the debate than science. Hopefully, though, I am not truly "pretentious;" so I will publically humiliate myself here in the interests of being defensive. Which may be pretentious. Haw.
First, it would seem that we are at a point of uncertainty that only time and additional research will resolve; weather trends of the last several years that, while they fall within the range of short term variability science has told us we can expect, have given rise to questions that need to be examined, and it takes some considerable time to get the information and data required to explain what is going on and why. The public isn't particularly patient with that process. Secondly-and again, with an eye to public understanding- we need to further define existing events and occurrences such as extreme weather; what it is, how mankind is influencing it, and the time frames we are really operating under when it comes to Climate Change. It is clearly apparent that there is a segment of the public which wants to define "extreme weather" in very specific terms based on examples given, and has an expectation of near immediacy when dates come and go and the cataclysmic events that have been predicted have not occurred. Third, we need to understand climate modeling better and the variables that impact different scenarios, as well as continue to develop those models. For example: extreme weather is not limited to hurricanes or warm weather events, and is regional in nature more than global...time frames are not this year, next or even in some cases decades, but much longer than that, so when we see comments like '30 years ago this was predicted and it hasn't happened yet..." we know that this along with interpretations of local weather vs. global averages reflects a lack of understanding of the time scale on which we are trying to operate. For a final example, models are going to be subject to the parameters employed, and we have to understand that if a model says "if we continue to do X, Y is likely to occur by such and such a time..." this scenario is going to be affected by the "if" part of X. (I'm not a mathematician either, btw)
So all of this stuff as well as many other things have an impact on public perception; until time reveals the outcomes and we have the scientific information we need, we are going to debate the issue based on geopolitics, economics, and ideology-the psychological rather than scientific dynamic; the emotional rather than the logical. I rest my case, your honor.
My refrain is always to return to the scenario of multiple benefits-fossil fuels and primarily oil being the example I use the most in terms of the development of alternative energy. We have a choice; we can continue the behavior that has dictated the investment of trillions upon trillions of dollars and cost untold human life for decades, or we can figure out better ways of generating the energy we need to advance society. Since that occurs at the same time we are continuing to practice war and killing hundreds of thousands of people in the pursuit of oil, it is an economic conflict and that is at the root of the confrontation. But I for one don't like the idea of killing people, besides the immoral nature of killing people for the convenience of consumerism, it pisses off the survivors. So I am in favor of developing alternatives, despite the fits and starts-we've certainly seen a good example of that in the nuclear industry, which gained support for decades and then lost it when the downsides became apparent...and now we're going hmmm, maybe we should take another look at it. We're doing the same thing with wind, solar and biofuels, just on a shorter time scale. I think the investment is worth it, even if I don't personally and immediately benefit. Others do not...but like one of my best friends-an arch conservative where I am more liberal-said on the occasion of being lumped in with people who would continue the status quo at the cost of human life..."I don't want children to starve!"
That's not pretentious. And I may be overly optimistic, but I believe people of good will who feel an obligation to future generations will find a way to work together to leave the best legacy we can regardless of the impasse(s) that the pretentious temporarily construct.
I know you like to label people like me pretentious but I think cautious is apt. Besides, there are plently of climate scientists who say we don't we don't know enough. One even wrote an entire peer-reviewed paper about it: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1...
What do you know about it? you're the one who sounds off like an expert.
So tell us what are the physics involved? is it just radiative effects of CO2, or do we also have to take into consideration, atmospheric circulation, jet steams, th AO, NAO, PDO, water vapour, clouds, albedo, ocean cycles, the troposphere, stratosphere, thermosphere, ozone, aerosols. solar radiation, solar wind, cosmic rays.
Or is that all cut and dried, and the science is settled.
What about the large number of scientists who think there is still doubt, people like Judith Curry, Freeman Dyson, Steven E. Koonin, Richard Lindzen, Craig Loehle, Garth Paltridge, Denis Rancourt, Hendrik Tennekes, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Sallie Baliunas, Don Easterbrook, William M. Gray, William Happer, and a load more that I could name, do you think they don't count, or perhaps you think they are all in the pay of big oil.
So you have your own opinion, but we have ours, who is to say who is right?
They are the ones who claim certainty. We don't have to know for certain how warm it will get or how bad it will get to justify clean energy. People buy fire insurance even though the odds are 1200:1 against them ever needing it.
Anyone who thinks he is better than other people is a fool.
The "cautious" "skeptics" are too busy recycling Wattsup in the form of fake questions, in order to save us from UN helicopters, to pay attention to pretentiousness or not pretentiousness.
I don't think so, time may tell.
Ignore them, they lost the argument years ago.
Yes. Were they to actually make any serious efforts to learn the Science and less efforts towards souring the internet for any tidbit that would support their opinions then they would be less pretentious in what they say. Their best efforts to understanding the Science seems to be in stating pointless factoids. Such as the sun warms our planet. While this is a fact is also meaningless as to how much of our sun's energy is retained by our planet.
Those who claim the debate is over are the pretentious ones.
There is no man made global warming. That's a fact, Jack.
nein...ignorant und recalcitrant.
How do you know that I get my knowledge from the 'six o'clock weather'? I get my observations from many many sources, even greenie sources. The greenie sources are the best since every once in a while they show the true real genuine goals of the greenie agenda.
Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
And we know to what end, thanks to the greenies:
Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
Can you deny it? Ha! Ha! You have proven Professor Gruber right.
climate scientists are not really scientists
yes
no they are just retarded
sure
